Components of Family Meetings for Hospitalized Children With Serious Illness: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Family meetings between pediatric clinicians and parents are used to facilitate in-depth discussions and decision-making about patient care. To guide implementation of family meetings for hospitalized children with medical complexity, this scoping review identified the common components of family meetings for hospitalized pediatric patients with serious illness across pediatric subspecialties. OBJECTIVE: To describe key components of family meetings for hospitalized pediatric patients with serious illness. DATA SOURCES: With the assistance of a professional librarian, we searched 5 databases. STUDY SELECTION: We included primary research studies describing planned interactions between 2 or more health care providers and family decision-makers for hospitalized children with serious illness. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted components of family meetings, which we organized based on timing (before, during, and after the meeting) and combined thematically. RESULTS: We evaluated 11 151 title/abstracts, reviewed 77 full-text articles, and included 23 articles describing 21 studies. Most studies focused on meetings in intensive care units (96%), were conducted in the United States (91%), and were published after 2020 (52%). We identified 15 components occurring before (n = 4), during (n = 8), and after (n = 3) family meetings. Components included both specific tasks (identify need for a meeting) and communication goals (assess and support understanding). Most components were identified through study observations rather than recommendations made by the researchers. CONCLUSION: There is a developing body of evidence about family meetings, which is largely focused on intensive care settings, that can inform development of targeted research to support implementation of family meetings in pediatric hospital medicine.
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 | 0.017 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".