MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400018823 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305562

A national survey of children’s experiences and needs when attending Canadian pediatric emergency departments

2024· article· en· W4400018823 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Keon Ma, Asa Rahimi, Manasi Rajagopal, Maryna Yaskina, Ran D. Goldman, Ashley Jones, Tannis Erickson, Naveen Poonai, Candice McGahern, Laura Weingarten, Bethany Lerman, Marie‐Christine Auclair, Helen Wong, Lisa Hartling, Kurt Schreiner, Shannon D. Scott, Samina Ali

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversity of ManitobaBC Children's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Calgary
FundersStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationChildren's Hospital FoundationUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineFamily medicineCross-sectional studyHealth careChild healthPediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Optimizing a child's emergency department (ED) experience positively impacts their memories and future healthcare interactions. Our objectives were to describe children's perspectives of their needs and experiences during their ED visit and relate this to their understanding of their condition. METHODS: 514 children, aged 7-17 years, and their caregivers presenting to 10 Canadian pediatric EDs completed a descriptive cross-sectional survey from 2018-2020. RESULTS: Median child age was 12.0 years (IQR 9.0-14.0); 56.5% (290/513) were female. 78.8% (398/505) reported adequate privacy during healthcare conversations and 78.3% (395/504) during examination. 69.5% (348/501) understood their diagnosis, 89.4% (355/397) the rationale for performed tests, and 67.2% (338/503) their treatment plan. Children felt well taken care of by nurses (90.9%, 457/503) and doctors (90.8%, 444/489). Overall, 94.8% (475/501) of children were happy with their ED visit. Predictors of a child better understanding their diagnosis included doctors talking directly to them (OR 2.21 [1.15, 4.28]), having someone answer questions and worries (OR 2.51 [1.26, 5.01]), and older age (OR 1.08 [1.01, 1.16]). Direct communication with a doctor (OR 2.08 [1.09, 3.99]) was associated with children better understanding their treatment, while greater fear/ 'being scared' at baseline (OR 0.59 [0.39, 0.89]) or at discharge (OR 0.46 [0.22, 0.96]) had the opposite effect. INTERPRETATION: While almost all children felt well taken care of and were happy with their visit, close to 1/3 did not understand their diagnosis or its management. Children's reported satisfaction in the ED should not be equated with understanding of their medical condition. Further, caution should be employed in using caregiver satisfaction as a proxy for children's satisfaction with their ED visit, as caregiver satisfaction is highly linked to having their own needs being met.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207