Conceptual Framework for Health‐related Quality of Life Assessment in Acute Gastroenteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To date, most trials in pediatric acute gastroenteritis have evaluated short-term clinical disease activity (eg, duration of diarrhea or vomiting, level of dehydration), laboratory outcomes (eg, rotavirus, norovirus), or a composite of these outcomes. Measuring health-related quality of life may also be important in evaluating the effect of interventions for acute gastroenteritis in children. The objectives of this study were to conduct individual interviews and, when possible, focus group discussions, with parents of children with acute gastroenteritis; to determine how parent and child quality of life is negatively affected by acute gastroenteritis; and, from the perspective of parents and children, to develop a conceptual framework for quality of life instrument specific to pediatric acute gastroenteritis. METHODS: We conducted interviews and focus groups with parents of children (3 months-5 years of age) given a diagnosis of gastroenteritis in a hospital emergency department. Interviews and focus groups were conducted to determine the effect of gastroenteritis on quality of life in parents and children (as perceived by the parents). RESULTS: Interviews and focus groups involving 25 parents suggested a conceptual framework that, for children, includes 2 domains (physical and emotional function) and 14 subdomains. For parents, our framework includes 3 domains (physical, emotional, and social function) with physical function including 4 subdomains, emotional function including 7 subdomains, and social function including 2 subdomains. The framework has been used to develop a preliminary quality of life questionnaire for parents and children. CONCLUSIONS: Acute gastroenteritis has an important adverse effect on health-related quality in both children and parents involving physical symptoms and restrictions in physical function and disturbed emotional function. Upon further research on the psychometric properties of the proposed questionnaires, future trials of effectiveness should consider measuring patient important outcomes such as health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".