Experiences of siblings of children with chronic health conditions: A qualitative study in the Australian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Siblings of children with chronic health conditions face unique psychosocial challenges, yet their voices remain underrepresented in research. While existing studies primarily rely only on parental proxy reports of sibling well-being or focus on experiences of older siblings or are confined to specific conditions like cancer, there is limited understanding of siblings' experiences more broadly from their voice. This study investigated the experiences of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in Australia from both sibling and parental perspectives. DESIGN AND METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study using purposive sampling was employed to recruit siblings (aged 5-12 years) of children with chronic health conditions and their parents. Families were recruited through schools, non-profit organizations, and private practitioners, and data were collected using online semi-structured interviews based on the Sibling Embedded Systems Framework. Framework Analysis was used following the deductive-inductive approach. RESULTS: The sample included 14 parents and 9 siblings. Emerging themes highlighted that siblings experience mixed emotions when navigating changes in their lives related to their brother's or sister's chronic health condition. They often develop responsible and caring behaviors, but also negative interpretations over time. Siblings expect timely and age-appropriate illness-related information and communications. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Data suggests that siblings' adjustment and coping in the context of a pediatric chronic health condition might be influenced by their involvement in caregiving and decision-making related to the disease condition, which needs to be studied further. Findings will guide the health service delivery to enhance siblings' well-being and improve family outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".