A systematic mapping review of qualitative research in paediatric otolaryngology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To map the scope, methods and focus areas of qualitative research in paediatric otolaryngology. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic mapping review searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and PsycInfo (August 2025) for qualitative or mixed-methods studies with a qualitative component related to paediatric otolaryngology. Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria. Key study characteristics were extracted; no formal risk-of-bias assessment was performed, in line with the aims of a mapping review. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies were included. Publications rose sharply after 2015, with nearly three-quarters from the USA, Canada and the UK. Otology (49 per cent) and laryngology (40 per cent) predominated; common topics were hearing loss, tonsillectomy and tracheostomy. Interviews, mainly semi-structured (73 per cent), were the dominant method, and caregivers were the most frequent participants (62 per cent). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research in paediatric otolaryngology is growing but remains geographically and methodologically narrow. Broader stakeholder inclusion and methodological diversity are needed to deepen understanding and support patient-centred 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 | 0.182 | 0.417 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".