MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133359595 · doi:10.5737/cjcn-35-2-25

Supports for Parents of Infants Diagnosed with a Congenital Heart Defect: A Narrative Synthesis of Qualitative Research

2025· article· W7133359595 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Tuck, Connie Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchEmpathyNarrativeAnxietyTerminologyNarrative inquiryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents of infants diagnosed with a congenital heart defect (CHD) often experience an overwhelming emotional journey, characterized by anxiety, stress, and role strain. This study examines the informational, emotional, and practical supportive care needs of parents whose infants are diagnosed with a CHD in hospital, at birth. Employing a secondary analysis of qualitative literature in the form of a narrative synthesis, this research categorizes parents’ needs into three types: (1) informational, where parents often feel overwhelmed by medical terminology and desire clear guidance; (2) emotional, where parents require empathy and understanding from healthcare providers and benefit from peer support; and (3) practical, highlighting parents’ need for assistance with daily responsibilities and self-care. Findings from this synthesis emphasize the role of nurses in meeting these needs through comprehensive education, compassionate care, and practical resources. Thus, nurses can collectively help reduce parental anxiety and foster a supportive environment for families.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→