Parental experiences in navigating health services for paediatric residual obstructive sleep apnoea: An exploratory qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore parents' experiences and perceptions regarding engagement in health services for managing residual paediatric obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) across levels of care. METHODS: Qualitative description guided study design. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with parents of children diagnosed with residual OSA at a university-based sleep clinic. The relevant literature informed the interview guide and was piloted before data collection. Inductive, manifest content analysis was used to describe parents' perceptions and experiences using data-driven categories and sub-categories. Several strategies were employed to ensure rigour in this study. RESULTS: Eight interviews were conducted. Parents' views were organized into five categories: awareness of the sleep issue, interaction with non-sleep specialists, interaction with sleep specialists, interaction with dental professionals, and further actions and support. Parents reported several engagement issues due to their interactions with different care providers. These issues included having to personally identify and raise the sleep problem, feeling that care providers did not take this problem seriously, waiting for an extended period to be referred for sleep services, and receiving conflicting or insufficient treatment recommendations. Overall, parents perceived that their actions and the services received across levels of care were not effective enough to address paediatric OSA. CONCLUSION: Based on this exploratory qualitative descriptive research, along with developing evidence-based clinical guidelines for paediatric OSA screening and management tailored to different levels of care, strategies intended to improve the engagement of patients and care providers in addressing paediatric OSA should be developed and empirically tested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".