Psychological Intervention for Adolescents with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: For Whom and When?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study which adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) benefit from psychological intervention, and what is the best moment for it. METHODS: In 3 months, 28 adolescents with JIA and 14 healthy adolescents as a control group received psychological intervention with the Self-confrontation Method (SCM), which combines the personal narrative with its affective structure. The adolescents with JIA were split into groups with low health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and high HRQOL. The Child Health Questionnaire, Checklist Individual Strength, and Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire were used to measure fatigue and physical and psychosocial functioning at baseline, and at 3 months and 9 months after baseline. RESULTS: Adolescents with JIA and low HRQOL at baseline reported less fatigue and better HRQOL after psychological intervention. These changes could not be explained by changes in disease activity. Low HRQOL at baseline was associated with a more recent onset of JIA, higher levels of pain, more severe physical disability, and higher levels of fatigue. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of adolescents with JIA function well before and after psychological intervention. One-third of adolescents with JIA reporting low HRQOL at baseline benefit from guided self-reflections and should be the focus of psychological intervention. The most effective moment for this psychological intervention is when the adolescent reports difficulties in HRQOL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".