Comparing children’s and parents’ perspectives of health outcome in paediatric hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study exampled the properties of a child-completed version of the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire (cHOQ) and compared these with parental responses to the HOQ (parent version). This was a cross-sectional study in the outpatient clinics at three Canadian paediatric hospitals (Toronto, Vancouver, and Halifax). All cognitively-capable children with previously treated hydrocephalus who were aged between 6 and 19 years were eligible. Parents completed the HOQ and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3; children completed the cHOQ. A total of 273 children participated (146 males, 127 females; mean age 14 y 1 mo, SD 2 y 7 mo). Internal consistency of the cHOQ was 0.93 and test-retest reliability was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.92). Mother-child agreement and father-child agreement were 0.57 (0.40-0.68) and 0.62 (0.48-0.73) respectively. Agreement was higher for assessments of physical health, but lower for assessments of cognitive health and social-emotional health. There was greater parent-child agreement for older children. When there was disagreement, it seemed that children tended to rate their health better than their parents did. In older children with hydrocephalus, the cHOQ appears to be a scientifically reliable means of assessing long-term outcome. The differences in child and parent perceptions of health need to be appreciated when conducting outcome studies in this population.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".