Caregiver recall of treatment recommendations in juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Health care providers in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) might refer to caregivers' self-report of children's treatment-related behaviors to assist in clinical decisions. However, caregivers may believe that they are adhering to treatment even though they have a different understanding of recommendations than that intended by the medical team. We examined whether caregiver recall of children's JIA treatment matched actual recommendations at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. METHODS: A total of 235 primary caregivers were recruited from rheumatology clinics at 2 pediatric university-based teaching hospitals in Canada. Using the Parent Adherence Report Questionnaire, caregivers indicated whether their child was prescribed medications and/or exercises. Medical charts were reviewed to determine the prescribed treatment. Level of agreement between both sets of data was then examined. RESULTS: A total of 175 caregivers provided complete data. Mean age of the children was 10.2 years (68.6% girls); 44.6% were diagnosed with oligoarthritis. Kappa coefficients for medication represented substantial to almost perfect agreement beyond chance, with better levels of agreement at 12 months (kappa = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.68, 0.94) than at baseline (kappa = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47, 0.76). Kappa coefficients for exercise represented slight to moderate agreement beyond chance, with better agreement at 12 months (kappa = 0.44, 95% CI 0.24, 0.63) than at baseline (kappa = 0.27, 95% CI 0.08, 0.47). CONCLUSION: Weaker agreement for the exercise regimen raises concern that caregivers may pay less attention to exercise recommendations or that these recommendations may not be easily understood.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".