MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073141791 · doi:10.1097/bpb.0b013e328343184c

Can parents rate their children's quality of life? Perspectives on pediatric orthopedic outcomes

2011· article· en· W2073141791 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespondentQuality of life (healthcare)DemographicsOrthopedic surgeryMental healthPediatricsFamily medicineClinical psychologyDemographyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ultimate goal of treatment for children with orthopedic problems is to improve their health-related quality of life. Because children may lack the abilities to effectively interpret and answer the questions used to assess a patient's health-related quality of life, parent proxies have been used in such pediatric cases. Unfortunately, previous studies exploring the efficacy of these parent proxies have been inconsistent. It is therefore important to determine the level of agreement between child-parent dyads and whether agreement is mediated by variables such as disease type, demographics, instrument, and the domain being assessed. The purpose of this study was to examine the degree of agreement between children and their parents' ratings in the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) and the Pediatric Orthopaedic Data Collection Instrument (PODCI), two instruments commonly used to assess health-related quality of life in children. The CHQ, PODCI, and standard demographic and clinical data were collected from parents and children between the ages of 5 and 18 years with a wide range of musculoskeletal problems. There was a strong level of agreement between child and parent responses for most of the domains in both instruments. Exceptions included Physical Functioning (PF), General Health (GH), and Mental Health (MH) in the CHQ, and Expectations in the PODCI. All four of these domains exhibited significant differences between the two respondent groups and had medium effect sizes. Children reported a higher level of PF and lower levels of both GH and MH than their parents. Additionally, parents reported significantly higher expectations for treatment than children did. None of the regressions yielded significant β values for child age, parent sex, match/no match between parent-child sex, and scoliosis/nonscoliosis diagnosis. These significant discrepancies were not driven by specific subsamples; therefore, we concluded that these discrepancies can be generalized to the pediatric orthopedic population. Our results also indicate that the CHQ is more sensitive than the PODCI to the rating differences between children and parents. The results of this study can serve clinicians in pediatric orthopedic surgery as a guide for not only selecting the most appropriate instruments for assessment but also for interpreting treatment outcomes most meaningfully. Level of Evidence is the Level II Prognostic Study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it