The Child Health Questionnaire in children with diabetes: cross‐sectional survey of parent and adolescent‐reported functional health status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To study parent and adolescent-reported physical, psychosocial and family wellbeing in children aged 5-18 years with diabetes. SUBJECTS: 5-18-year-olds attending a diabetes clinic at a tertiary children's hospital. MEASURES: (1) Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) PF-50, a functional heath status measure for children aged 5-18 years (parents); (2) CHQ CF-80, a similar self-report measure (adolescents aged 12-18 years); (3) 11 study-designed questions related to diabetes-specific concerns (parents); (4) global ratings of physical and psychosocial health (clinicians); (5) HbA1c level (all subjects). CHQ data were compared with Australian normative data collected six months earlier. RESULTS: Reports were obtained from 128 parents and 71 adolescents (90 and 92% response). The CHQ demonstrated good psychometric properties in this sample of children with diabetes. Parents reported children with diabetes to have generally poorer health than children in the normative sample, especially on psychosocial and parent/family scales. Psychosocial health was markedly lower in 5-11-year-olds with HbA1c > 8.8%, but not in 12-18-year-olds. Presence of diabetes-related symptoms and concerns correlated with lower physical and psychosocial functioning. Parents and clinicians concurred in their ratings of health for 12-18-year-olds but not 5-11-year-olds. Adolescents reported their own health similarly to adolescents in the normative sample. CONCLUSIONS: Parents report children aged 5-18 years with diabetes to have poorer health than children in the normative sample across all domains. Clinicians may underrate the impact of diabetes for younger children, with possible therapeutic implications. In providing an overall description of health, instruments like the CHQ may add another dimension to the care of children with diabetes and can feasibly be used within clinical settings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".