Having a heart-to-heart: Parents’ experiences preparing their child for a cardiac procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac procedures can be overwhelming for children and parents, with a lack of literature surrounding how healthcare professionals can assist parents in preparing young children for such procedures. This exploratory descriptive qualitative study sought to understand experiences of parents preparing and supporting their child with congenital heart disease, for an upcoming cardiac procedure. Parents of children, aged between three and eight years old, who had undergone a cardiac procedure at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Australia were invited to participate in an interview. Seven parents were interviewed, with recordings transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four major themes identified were (1) evolving information needs; (2) anticipating anxiety; (3) honesty when delivering information; and (4) equipping parents with resources. Findings from this study emphasised that support for children prior to cardiac procedures must include empowering parents, as they know their child best. A key component of procedural preparation is helping parents navigate how to translate procedural information into explanations which are relatable and appropriate for their child. The development of interactive, relatable resources would allow parents to continue their child's preparation beyond the preadmission visit.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".