The Caregiver Burden of Helmet Therapy following Endoscopic Strip Craniectomy: A Phenomenological Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This cohort study aimed to elucidate the caregiver burden of helmet therapy (HT), following endoscopic strip craniectomy (ESC) to treat craniosynostosis, in an effort to inform clinicians and future caregivers navigating this therapeutic option. METHODS: Fourteen caregivers of children with positional plagiocephaly (6) and craniosynostosis treated by ESC (8) undergoing HT at a single center were recruited via convenience sampling. Using a phenomenological qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the experience of HT for caregivers. Data collection and analysis were iterative and conducted until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Emerging themes revealed five domains of caregiver burden: emotional, cognitive, physical, psychosocial, and financial. No caregiver felt the therapy was too burdensome to complete. Caregivers of both groups also expressed positive aspects of HT related to support from the team, the noninvasive nature of treatment, and the outcomes of therapy. Furthermore, caregivers report overall satisfaction with the process, stating willingness to repeat the treatment with subsequent children if required. CONCLUSION: HT is associated with five major domains of caregiver burden; however, none of the caregivers regret choosing this treatment option, nor was the burden high enough to encourage treatment cessation. This study will inform future prospective analyses that will quantify real-time caregiver burden throughout HT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".