Parental and family presence are essential: A qualitative study of children's lived experiences with family presence in pediatric intensive care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand critically ill children's lived experiences with family presence in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative, interpretive phenomenological study is grounded in a Childhood Ethics ontology. We recruited children (aged 6-17 years) admitted to one of four participating Canadian PICUs between November 2021-July 2022 using maximum variation sampling. Data generation methods included participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Field-notes and interview transcripts were analyzed following the SAMMSA (Summary &Analysis coding, Micro themes, Meso themes, Syntheses, and Analysis) approach. RESULTS: Fourteen participants (7 boys; 7 girls) described parental presence in PICU as essential. Parents contributed to their sense of safety, acted as advocates and interlocuters, and were crucial to participants' belief that their voices would be heard and their needs met. Participants valued the ways in which family and visitor presence mitigated the disruptions that being in PICU caused to their social worlds. Age limits restricted sibling and peer interaction and inadvertently restricting parental presence due to sibling childcare needs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Parental figure presence in PICU is essential for children. Policies that focus on children as patients instead of whole people discredit childrens' concerns and the ways parental figures mitigate the disruptive nature of PICU admissions. Future policy generation must involve children to ensure that their priorities and concerns are meaningfully recognized.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".