The psychological and social impact of camp for children with chronic illnesses: a systematic review update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in medicine have reduced mortality among children with complex medical conditions, resulting in a growing number of young patients living with chronic illnesses. Despite an improved prognosis, these children experience significant psychosocial morbidity, such as depression and anxiety. Therapeutic summer recreation camps have been proposed as an intervention to enhance quality of life among these children. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the psychosocial impact of camp for children with chronic illnesses. A systematic review of central databases was undertaken using key words, and a rating tool – the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies – was employed to rate methodological quality. 21 studies were included in this systematic review. Although overall methodological quality was weak, camp participation appeared to offer short-term psychosocial benefits on some parameters in children with a variety of chronic illnesses. There was some consistency in improved social outcomes, such as social interaction and acceptance. Based on the available evidence, it is premature to make robust claims regarding the psychosocial impact of camp as a therapeutic intervention. Theoretically informed camp programs, long-term follow-up, and incorporating camp-based messaging into routine hospital care,may enhance the utility of camp as a potential psychosocial intervention in paediatrics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".