“Keeping the Door Open”: The Lived Experiences of Developmental Pediatricians in Caring for Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Within an evolving and increasingly complex pediatric context, little is known about how developmental pediatricians experience their interactions with families within nuanced clinical practices that demand flexibility and a tolerance for ambiguity. To address this gap, this study explored the perspectives and experiences of developmental pediatricians regarding their communications and interactions with children and families. METHOD: A qualitative exploratory design informed by phenomenology was used. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 developmental pediatricians across Canada. Issues involving children's agency and their right to participate in shared decision-making were examined. RESULTS: Developmental pediatrics emerged as an inherently relational practice that involves building strong long-term relationships with caregivers through a strength-based, humble, and self-reflexive approach. "Keeping the door open" and "planting the seed" arose as metaphorical representations of developmental pediatricians' commitment to ensuring caregivers feel supported and understood. Moreover, challenges associated with involving children in decision-making processes, as well as managing caregivers' understandings and desires for their child's diagnosis were evident. CONCLUSION: The findings generated by this study elucidate the clinical approaches and communication styles of developmental pediatricians. Despite participants' strong family-centered approach to care, future clinical considerations should accentuate the promotion of children's autonomy and rights in developmental pediatrics.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".