Perspectives of parents with lived experience of cytomegalovirus infection, on universal newborn screening for congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) in Canada: a patient-led qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand parental perspectives regarding universal newborn screening (UNS) for congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) in Canada. DESIGN: A qualitative, patient-led study using the Patient and Community Engagement Research approach consisting of online focus groups and in-depth individual interviews to understand parental preferences regarding UNS for cCMV. Data were analysed iteratively using inductive thematic analysis and narrative story analysis. SETTING: Canada-wide study conducted via video conference from October to December 2023. PATIENTS: 12 participants from five Canadian provinces who self-identified as 18 years of age or older and as having parental lived experience with cytomegalovirus (CMV) or cCMV participated in the study. RESULTS: We identified three themes: (1) attitudes about UNS for cCMV, including participants' unanimous support for UNS and confirmation that parental anxiety is not a deterrent for screening, (2) cCMV diagnosis, including the importance of coupling cCMV diagnosis with access to treatment and medical support and (3) awareness of cCMV, where participants shared their frustration about the lack of public and pregnant people's awareness of cCMV. CONCLUSIONS: Parental anxiety is not a deterrent for UNS for cCMV. Children with cCMV and their families deserve every opportunity to attain their best possible outcomes. UNS offers children with cCMV access to early intervention if they need it, and also helps to raise awareness and education to prevent future CMV infections.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".