Interprofessional pediatric provider perspectives on children’s rights: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) has drawn significant attention to children’s rights on a global scale. While healthcare providers play a pivotal role in promoting children’s rights, realizing these rights in practice remains a challenging endeavor. This study explored how pediatric healthcare providers perceive and implement children’s rights in their practice. Using a mixed-methods, cross-sectional design, we distributed a12-item survey to an international sample of interprofessional pediatric healthcare providers. A total of 86 healthcare providers completed the survey, including pediatricians (n = 38), nurses (n = 35), and “other” interprofessional healthcare providers (n = 13). Almost all (99%) respondents associated children’s rights with being heard, providing information, and participating in decision-making. Pediatricians were more likely to view family-centered care as supportive of children’s rights and reported a stronger perceived integration of these rights within interprofessional teams. Qualitative findings highlighted caregivers’ influence in shaping shared decision-making processes, and age-based views of children’s decision-making capacities. Our findings suggest that the realization of children’s rights in practice requires an interprofessional and collaborative approach. Future initiatives should focus on education, training, and policy developments to strengthen the integration of children’s rights in pediatric care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".