Do Parents and Children Agree? Quality‐of‐Life Assessment of Children With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Their Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multi-item measures of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) activity based on clinical, laboratory, and/or endoscopic variables do not take into consideration the impact on the patients' emotional aspects and adaptation to the disease. The aim of the present study was to evaluate concordance between parent and child ratings of health-related quality of life on the IMPACT-III questionnaire in children with IBD. METHODS: The IMPACT-III questionnaire was used to measure quality of life in 27 patients (mean age 14.2 ± 3 years, 40% girls) and one of their parents (82% mothers). Most of the patients had inactive disease at the time of the study. Differences between parent-proxy ratings and child ratings on the IMPACT-III were compared via paired-samples t tests, intraclass correlation coefficients, and standardized difference scores. RESULTS: Parent-proxy and patient ratings were similar on total IMPACT-III and its related domains (bowel symptoms, systemic symptoms, social functioning, body image, treatment/interventions), except that significant differences on emotional functioning ratings were found (P = 0.003). Intraclass correlation coefficients showed medium-to-large effect sizes (range 0.52-0.88) and standardized difference scores showed varying degrees of bias depending on the domain measured (range -0.64 to 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Parents served as a good proxy for quality-of-life ratings in this population of pediatric patients with IBD. The degree of concordance between parent and child scores, however, varied, as observed in the present study in which parents underreported their child's health-related quality of life on the IMPACT-III emotional functioning domain.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".