MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064806251

"Can I see my Daddy?": child and adult family members as visitors in the adult intensive care unit

2020· dissertation· en· W7064806251 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuriosityFamily memberExploratory researchQualitative researchUnit (ring theory)Intensive care unitIntensive care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this qualitative study was to supply preliminary insights into improving the support of visiting families with children who are minors during the intensive care unit stay (ICU) of an adult family member. Hospitals often restrict children from visiting in ICUs; however, a review of the literature revealed that despite the prevalence of this policy, there has been little research into whether visiting is harmful or supportive (Liu et al., 2013; Manici & Ghillani, 2018). Although family-centred care (FCC) is considered beneficial for adult family members (Davidson et al., 2012; Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007), there is little evidence that policymakers have considered the involvement of children during an ICU stay (Knutsson & Bergbom, 2007). In this study, seven families shared their experiences of the critical illness of a loved one. Using a constructionist lens, this study explored the interaction between the gathered stories and the policies and practices associated with child and adult family members visiting adult critical care contexts in British Columbia (BC), Canada. This study found that the involvement of children in a family illness event is important and that tailoring involvement to the individual preferences of the child, and their family, is crucial. While navigating an ICU stay, families may benefit from a collaborative approach between the child, their caregiver/s, and a member of the ICU team. The goal of this research is that it will resonate with its readers and move people to deeper curiosity and further study. This exploratory study led to a list of seven preliminary recommendations that could inform the interdisciplinary policies and practices associated with supporting child and adult family members as visitors in an ICU. Further research is needed to explore the experiences of families with children more fully, and to understand the systems that need to be in place to support them during the critical illness of a loved one.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207