Generic patient‐reported outcomes in child health research: a review of conceptual content using World Health Organization definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Our aims were to (1) describe the conceptual basis of popular generic instruments according to World Health Organization (WHO) definitions of functioning, disability, and health (FDH), and quality of life (QOL) with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as a subcomponent of QOL; (2) map the instruments to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF); and (3) provide information on how the analyzed instruments were used in the literature. This should enable users to make valid choices about which instruments have the desired content for a specific context or purpose. METHOD: Child health-based literature over a 5-year period was reviewed to find research employing health status and QOL/HRQOL instruments. WHO definitions of FDH and QOL were applied to each item of the 15 most used instruments to differentiate measures of FDH and QOL/HRQOL. The ICF was used to describe the health and health-related content (if any) in those instruments. Additional aspects of instrument use were extracted from these articles. RESULTS: Many instruments that were used to measure QOL/HRQOL did not reflect WHO definitions of QOL. The ICF domains within instruments were highly variable with respect to whether body functions, activities and participation, or environment were emphasized. INTERPRETATION: There is inconsistency among researchers about how to measure HRQOL and QOL. Moreover, when an ICF content analysis is applied, there is variability among instruments in the health components included and emphasized. Reviewing content is important for matching instruments to their intended purpose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".