ICF-based functional components and contextual factors as correlates of perceived quality of life for youth with chronic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based functional components and contextual factors associated with perceived quality of life (QOL) for youth with chronic conditions from the perspective of youth and parents. METHOD: Baseline data were obtained from a longitudinal study examining predictors of changes in perceived QOL for youth with chronic conditions. 439 youth aged 11-17 (and one of their parents) completed a questionnaire. Standardized tools were used to measure youth functioning, contextual factors and perceived QOL. Multivariate linear regression analyses, controlling for socio-demographic and health information, were conducted to explore correlations among youth functioning/contextual factors and youth and parent perceptions of youth QOL. RESULTS: Significant (p ≤ 0.05) negative correlates with both youth and parent perceptions of youth QOL included pain/other physical symptoms and emotional symptoms. Significant factors positively correlated with youth and parent perceptions of youth QOL included school productivity and spirituality. Other significant positive correlates of youth perspectives were family social support and school belongingness/safety. Family functioning was positively correlated, and youth social anxiety and environmental barriers were negatively correlated, with parent perceptions of youth QOL. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence of factors upon which services aimed at improving perceived QOL of youth with chronic conditions could be based. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: This study supports the utility of clinicians assessing the QOL of youth with chronic conditions in terms of youths' and their families' perspectives. This is the first study to identify key factors that impact perceived QOL at one point in time across a group of youth with chronic conditions, offering clinicians a main starting-point for considering youths' strengths and needs and the supportiveness of the environment. Findings suggest youth and families would benefit from the availability of services that encompass the full scope of the ICF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".