USING Q-METHODOLOGY TO EXPLORE PREFERENCES FOR CARE OF ADOLESCENTS WITH CHRONIC DISORDERS: 4 PROFILES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescents with chronic disorders are seldom asked to give opinions about their preferences for care, even though they are frequent health care users and soon need to take over the responsibility of managing their own care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate care-related preferences of adolescents with chronic disorders. METHODS: A Q-methodologic study was conducted in a random sample of 31 adolescents with various congenital and acquired disorders from the total population of Erasmus Medical Center-Agia Sophia Children's Hospital (12–19 years). Adolescents rank-ordered 37 statements about preferences for care and self-care using a quasi-normal distribution. Factor analysis was applied to identify clusters in the Q-sorts, groups of adolescents with common preferences. RESULTS: Four profiles were distinguished: concerned and compliant, backseat patient, opinionated and careless, and worried and insecure. Differences between profiles are related to independence competencies, level of involvement in management of the illness, adherence to therapeutic regimens, and appreciation of their parents' role. All adolescents want to have an important say in treatment-related decisions. Although adolescents are used to being accompanied by their parents in the consultation room, they sometimes prefer to be on their own. CONCLUSIONS: Four different preference profiles were uncovered. Caregivers recognize these profiles in daily practice. Because the goal of Q-methodology is to establish different patterns but not their prevalence, the distribution of profiles will be explored in a large follow-up survey. Additional use of these profiles in daily practice will be also explored, because rank-ordering the statements stimulated adolescents to talk about care issues.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".