What Matters Most for Patients, Parents, and Clinicians in the Course of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis? A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess which clinical features are most important for patients, parents, and clinicians in the course of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Forty-nine people participated in 6 audience-specific focus group discussions and 112 reciprocal interviews in 3 Canadian cities. Participants included youth with JIA, experienced English- and French-speaking parents, novice parents (<6 mos since diagnosis), pediatric rheumatologists, and allied health professionals. Participants discussed the importance of 34 JIA clinical features extracted from medical literature. Transcripts and interview reports underwent qualitative analysis to establish relative priorities for each group. RESULTS: Most study participants considered medication requirements, medication side effects, pain, participant-defined quality of life, and active joints as high priority clinical features of JIA. Active joint count was the only American College of Rheumatology core variable accorded high or medium priority by all groups. Rheumatologists and allied health professionals considered physician global assessment as high priority, but it had very low priority for patients and parents. The parent global assessment was considered high priority by clinicians, medium to high by parents, and low by patients. Child Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were considered low priority by patients and parents, and moderate or high by clinicians. The number of joints with limited motion was given low to very low priority by all groups. Parents gave high priority to arthritis flares. CONCLUSION: If our findings are confirmed, medication requirements, medication side effects, pain, participant-defined quality of life, and active joint counts should figure prominently in describing the course of JIA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".