ArticlePaediatrics & child health2024
Parents' experiences of their children's medical journeys with tracheostomies: A Focus Group Study.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Maternal experiences of home care for young children with tracheostomies in South Korea: a qualitative descriptive study.Child health nursing research · 2026Article
- Parental Values During Tracheostomy Decision-Making for Their Critically Ill Child: Interviews of Parents Who Just Made the Decision.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Caregiver-informed meta-synthesis of caregivers' experiences with tracheostomy decision-making in pediatrics.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- An exploratory study of psychological and decision-making outcomes among family members of critically ill patients.PloS one · 2025Article
- Shared decision-making about prolonged invasive ventilation for adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Children living with a tracheostomy have among the most complex medical care needs in Canada. The focus of this study was to gain a contemporary understanding of key aspects of these children's medical journeys. Methods: We conducted a qualitative constructivist grounded theory study using semi-structured focus groups with parents whose children are living in the community with a tracheostomy. Parents were recruited from the Stollery Children's Hospital Tracheostomy Clinic, which serves a geographically wide and diverse population. Results: Three focus groups were completed, including a total of 12 participants. Key themes leading up to tracheostomy related to contextual understanding, experiences of inclusion, and perceptions of proportionality. Parents discussed the preparedness for how a tracheostomy would affect their child, their own involvement in recovery, and the education needed for their child's medical care. Navigating hospital units related to inconsistencies in care, accommodations of families' needs, and confidence in care received. Finally, living in the community was the focus of much of the participants' discussions including coping with system-related issues, limited homecare and medical support, cost of care, and connections with the broader community of parents of children with complex medical needs. All themes encircled the family's deeply felt responsibility to care for their child. Conclusions: From both patient- and family-centered care perspectives, there exist individual and systemic issues related to the care delivery for children with a tracheostomy. It is in particular in the community where there is a severe deficiency of support afforded to these children and their families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.