Quality of Life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of English and Canadian Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Any disease and its treatment has an important impact on health-related quality of life for affected individuals. There have been few previous studies on the quality of life for children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: A cross-cultural comparison was performed to determine whether the concerns of children with IBD in the United Kingdom are ranked similarly to those of children with IBD in Canada. An item reduction questionnaire, developed from interviews with Canadian children with IBD, was scored by 53 British children with IBD for importance and frequency, as a questionnaire had been scored previously by 117 Canadian children. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between the mean scores (r = 0.831, P < 0.001) and ranks (r = 0.801, P < 0.001) for the 96 questions, and 43 of the 50 highest-ranking concerns corresponded for both populations. Confidence interval analysis showed a significant difference between the mean values for 21 of the 96 items; 20 of these 21 were ranked higher in the United Kingdom than they had been in Canada, suggesting that the frequency and/or degree of concern was greater for the British children with IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Health-related concerns of British children with Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis correlate closely with those of Canadian children with those diseases. Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity of individual questions, the most appropriate wording of these questions, and the optimal length for a proposed instrument to assess quality of life in children with IBD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".