MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410875784 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf038

Caring for children with medical complexity: Homecare nurses’ point of view

2025· article· en· W4410875784 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha Mekhuri, Natalie Pitch, Richa Patel, Ae-Ri Shin, Krista Keilty, Stephanie Chu, Julia Orkin, Reshma Amin

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNursingWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)Point (geometry)Medical carePsychologyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Children with medical complexity (CMC) have intense care demands, dependence on medical technology, and rely on homecare nursing. This study aimed to understand home care nurses' (HCN) experiences caring for CMCs to optimize their home-based place of employment, improve HCN-patient relationships to enhance care and promote CMCs to remain at home with their families safely. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 HCNs caring for CMC using medical technology. Interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Results: Two themes emerged: the unique experiences of a homecare nurse and interactions with patients and their families. Interviews revealed the role is rewarding, and HCNs developed meaningful connections with patients and their families. However, HCNs experienced several challenges in providing quality care. Conclusions: Understanding HCN's perspectives is critical to improving their experience in the role and enhancing care for their patients. These findings can inform the implementation of support needed to optimize the work experience for HCNs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→