Experiences of Inpatient Healthcare Services Among Children With Medical Complexity and Their Families: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) have high healthcare utilization and face unique challenges during hospital admissions. The evidence describing their experiences of inpatient care is distributed across disciplines. The aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence related to the inpatient experience of care for CMC and their families, particularly related to key aspects and methodological approaches, and identify gaps that warrant further study. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology and included all studies that reported experiences of acute hospital care for CMC/families. All study designs were included. Databases searched included EMBASE, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, MEDLINE(R) and APA PsycInfo from 2000 to 2022. Details about the participants, concepts, study methods and key findings were abstracted using a data abstraction tool. A thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Forty-nine papers were included: 27 qualitative studies, 10 quantitative studies, six mixed methods studies, two descriptive studies and four reviews. Some quantitative studies used validated instruments to measure experience of care, but many used non-validated surveys. There were a few interventional studies with a small sample size. Results of thematic analysis described the importance of negotiating care roles, shared decision-making, common goal setting, relationship-building, communication, sharing expertise and the hospital setting itself. CONCLUSION: CMC and families value relational elements of care and partnering through sharing expertise, decision-making and collaborative goal-setting when admitted to hospital. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review was conducted in alignment with the principles of patient and family engagement. The review was conceptualized, co-designed and conducted with the full engagement of the project's parent-partner. This team member was involved in all stages from constructing the review question, to developing the protocol, screening articles and drafting this manuscript.
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 | 0.015 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".