Parent Education and Counseling (PairEd-C) Intervention to Improve Family-Centered Care: Protocol for a Prospective Acceptability Study Using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family-centered care (FCC) is an intervention approach based on a respectful relationship between family and health care providers (HCPs) to ensure the health and well-being of children and their families. Although HCPs have a better perception of FCC, the level of its implementation is low. Reasons for low implementation include limited understanding, lack of training, and lack of implementation guidelines and tools to support implementation. Thus, we developed the Parent Education and Counseling (PairEd-C) intervention to improve FCC in pediatric oncology settings and assess its acceptability. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the prospective acceptability of the PairEd-C intervention using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) in the pediatric oncology department in a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. METHODS: The study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative study design. We aimed to recruit 10 to 15 participants for the in-depth interview. The study participants were health service leaders working in child cancer, HCPs, social workers, and parents of children with cancer. The intervention was developed using the integration of the first phase of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and testing complex interventions and the behavior change wheel (BCW) framework. The main PairEd-C intervention components align with the intervention functions of education, persuasion, training, environmental restructuring, modeling, and enablement, which were intended to improve FCC in the pediatric oncology unit by providing structured and comprehensive education and counseling of parents of children with cancer. The intervention was implemented by providing training for the health care team, facilitating discussion among HCPs and setting a shared plan, improving the commitment of the health care team, providing education for parents, improving parents' capacity to attend the intervention sessions, arranging discussion among parents of children with cancer, and provision of education and counseling on distress. The HCPs working in the unit received training on the designed intervention. The trained educators and the health care provider delivered the intervention. Data will be analyzed using deductive thematic coding with a framework analysis technique based on the 7 TFA constructs. Atlas ti. version 9 will be used for data analysis. RESULTS: Funding was acquired in 2017, and ethical clearance for conducting the study was obtained. We conducted the interviews with the study participants from December 2023 to January 2024. As of the acceptance of this protocol (June 2024), 12 study participants were interviewed. The data analysis process was started subsequently, and the manuscript will be completed and submitted for publication in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This acceptability study is expected to show that the designed intervention is acceptable to study participants, and the findings will be used to improve the intervention before progressing to the next step of our project. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54914.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".