The experience of caregiving for children with rare musculoskeletal conditions: a qualitative study in arthrogryposis multiplex congenita
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (AMC) is a group of rare musculoskeletal conditions that is associated with complex healthcare needs and long-term follow up. The literature reports significant direct, indirect, and psychosocial costs for caregivers of children with neuromuscular conditions. Due to mobility limitations and frequent hospital visits, caring for a child with AMC is complex. Other challenges experienced by caregivers include financial strain, job changes, changes in interpersonal relationships and abandonment. This study was aimed at exploring the lived experience of caregivers of children with AMC. METHODS: The present study is part of a larger global mixed methods study. In the initial quantitative aspect of the study, caregivers (n = 158) of children and youths with AMC (aged 0-21 years) responded to a cost of care survey on an electronic platform. Of the 158 participants, 13 caregivers then further consented to participate in the qualitative aspect of the study in which a 60-min semi-structured, individual interview was conducted remotely. Open-ended questions were developed to gain a deeper understanding of the direct and indirect costs of care, their impact on the caregivers' lives and the quality of the care-giving experience. Interviews were transcribed, and a coding scheme was developed drawing from both the existing literature and the content of the interviews. A deductive and inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data using the NVivo® qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Five themes describing the experiences of caregivers of children with AMC emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data: 1. Impact of the caregiving experience; 2. Cost of childcare; 3. Support system for care; 4. Managing and navigating care; 5. Supporting the child's growth and development. In addition to the results of the thematic analysis, specific recommendations shared by the caregivers included the need for support groups and provision of support to youths to prepare them for adolescence. These findings will inform resource allocation, policymaking, and support services for children with rare conditions, their caregivers and families.
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".