Experiences of Children With Osteogenesis Imperfecta in the Co-design of the Interactive Assessment and Communication Tool Sisom OI: Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Design Sessions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Children with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) experience a diversity of symptoms that expose them to difficult physical, mental, and social challenges. Sisom (DHealth) is an interactive assessment and communication tool designed to help children aged 6-12 years with chronic conditions express their symptoms. Recently, the co-design of the Sisom OI paper prototype was launched by seeking the perspectives of end users, including children with OI and their clinicians. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the experiences that children with OI were prompted to share with researchers during the co-design of the Sisom OI paper prototype. METHODS: A secondary analysis of qualitative data was conducted at a university-affiliated, pediatric, orthopedic hospital. The data sources consisted of interview transcripts, drawings, field notes, and observations derived from interviewing 12 children with OI who participated in the co-design of the Sisom OI paper prototype. The themes and subthemes identified from the data sources were generated using qualitative description. RESULTS: Three themes were identified. The first, Relating to Others, described the balance between feeling different versus feeling similar to other children. The subthemes were Common OI Experience, Feeling Different, and Feeling Just Like Others. The second, Relating to Their Condition, described children's positive and negative interactions with their own condition and health care. The subthemes were Understanding Their Condition, Special Relationship with the Hospital, and Difficult Treatments and Procedures. The third, Reflecting on Capabilities, described children's recognition of their strengths and limitations. The subthemes were Perceiving Limitations, Overcoming Isolation, and Celebrating Strengths. CONCLUSIONS: This co-design process provided children with OI the space to not only contribute to the development of the end product but also eloquently describe their experiences. These findings, based on the descriptions given by the children themselves, offer us a unique understanding of what it means to grow up with OI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».