THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTS’ CAREGIVING EXPERIENCE ON PSYCHIATRIC ADOLESCENTS’ OUTCOME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The quality of parents’ caregiving experience of adolescents with mental diseases can deeply influence the clinical evolution of patients and the quality of life of the whole family. \nAim. The aim of this study was to assess the predictable value of parental caregiving experience referred to the clinical evolution of psychiatric adolescents and their quality of life (QoL). \nSample and methodology. The sample consists of 24 adolescents (10 female and 14 male aged between 12 and 18 years) in charge to the daily Semi-residential Service for Adolescents within the Neuropsychiatric Unit for Children and Adolescents of Padua (Italy). Patients were assessed throughout 4 tests with a six-monthly test – retest methodology: the Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) to analyze the adolescent’s QoL, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) to estimate the presence of alexithymia, the Self-Report Symptom Inventory revise (SCL 90 R) and the Youth Self Report (YSR 11 – 18) of T. Achenbach to point out the presence of psychiatric symptoms, competences and psycho- behavioural profile. Moreover, it was filled in by operators the Global Assessment Functioning Scale (GAF) to evaluate patients global social functioning. \nParents of patients were assessed with the Experience of Caregiving Inventory (ECI). \nFor each patient the following data were collected: personal and familiar details, schooling, diagnosis, type of intervention, therapeutic compliance, working alliance. data was analyzed to find out the possible significant relation between the parental caregiving experience and other variables referred to adolescents’ clinical and psychosocial outcome. \nData about patients and parents were collected and transferred into a computerized database for computation, which is performed using SPSS version 14. \nResults and conclusions. From this study it emerges that the positive caregiving parental experience (positive total ECI scale) rather than the negative one, is linked to an improvement in symptomatology (SCL 90): the higher is the positive experience grade, the better will be the clinical improvement achievable with the treatment. It is discussed the important clinical implications of these in regards to the intervention towards parents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".