Communication in pediatric critical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this investigation was to conduct a comprehensive examination of communication between parents and health care professionals (HCPs) in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). A secondary analysis was performed on data from 3 previous qualitative studies, which included 30 physicians, 37 nurses, and 38 parents in France and Quebec (Canada). All three studies examined a mix of cases where children either survived or died. All data referring to communication between parents (and patients when applicable) and HCPs were examined to identity themes that related to communication. Thematic categories for parents and HCPs were developed. Three interrelated dimensions of communication were identified: (1) <i>informational communication</i>, (2) <i>relational communication</i>, and (3) <i>communication and parental coping</i>. Specific themes were identified for each of these 3 dimensions in relation to <i>parental concerns</i> as well as <i>HCP concerns</i>. This investigation builds on prior research by advancing a comprehensive analysis of PICU communication that includes (a) cases where life-sustaining treatments were withdrawn or withheld as well as cases where they were maintained, (b) data from HCPs as well as parents, and (c) investigations conducted in 4 different sites. An evidence-informed conceptual framework is proposed for PICU communication between parents and HCPs. We also outline priorities for the development of practice, education, and research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".