Parental Preferences and Shared Decision-Making for the Management of Febrile Young Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inform shared decision-making by identifying parental preferences for the management of their febrile young infant. METHODS: This was a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study using a cross-sectional questionnaire (May 2020-May 2022) followed by qualitative focus groups (September-December 2022) with parents of infants aged ≤60 days evaluated for fever at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Parental expectations, stressors, and desired level of decisional involvement were assessed using multiple-choice and 6-point-Likert scales. Questionnaire results informed the qualitative naturalistic inquiry into parents' decision-making experiences and preferences regarding the need for lumbar puncture (LP) and hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 432 parents (64.9% response), few anticipated the need for LP (10.2%) or hospitalization (20.8%), and these were selected as the most stressful aspects of management. No parent identified lack of decisional involvement as the most important stressor, although nearly all (97.5%) wanted to be involved in management decisions. Six focus groups with a subset of 17 parents revealed 4 main themes: (1) varying preferences for decisional involvement depending on the strength of the medical recommendation; (2) importance of involving parents in their infant's medical care; (3) need for tailored information; and (4) importance of supportive relationships. Parents reported feeling involved in discussions about their infant's care but that decisions regarding LP and hospitalization were usually made by the medical team. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of febrile young infants identified LP and hospitalization as the most unexpected and stressful aspects of care. Understanding individual family expectations and tailoring information based on the strength of medical recommendation is necessary to guide shared decision-making.
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 | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".