Comparison between children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their parents concerning perceived treatment adherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adherence to treatment in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) may be associated with better outcomes. Clinicians must be aware of possible divergence between parents and children regarding adherence, in order to gain a better understanding of adherence and factors associated with it. The objective was to determine the level of agreement between children with JIA and their parents concerning perception of the child's adherence to the treatment regimen (for both medications and exercises). METHODS: Fifty patients and their parents, who attended the JIA clinic at the Montreal Children's Hospital, completed the Child Adherence Report Questionnaire and the Parent Adherence Report Questionnaire. Paired t-tests were used to compare parents' and children's scores for adherence questions and agreements were analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Parents reported that their children showed more negative reactions to taking medication and doing exercises, more helpfulness from the medication, and more difficulty to carry out the exercise program than their children reported. ICCs (95% confidence interval) for medications and exercises were, respectively, 0.32 (0.04, 0.56) and 0.77 (0.61, 0.87) for overall adherence, 0.33 (0.05, 0.57) and 0.39 (0.09, 0.62) for perceived difficulty to following treatment, and 0.37 (0.09, 0.60) and 0.45 (0.17, 0.67) for how often children had negative reactions following treatment. Levels of agreement for perceived helpfulness of treatments were quite low. CONCLUSION: Agreement between parents and children concerning adherence was at best moderate, and generally better for the exercise program than for prescribed medications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".