Towards an understanding of the information and support needs of surgical adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed decision making for adolescents and families considering surgery for scoliosis requires essential information, including expected outcomes with or without treatment and the associated risks and benefits of treatment. Ideally families should also receive support in response to their individual concerns. The aim of this study was to identify health-specific needs for online information and support for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who have had or anticipate having spinal surgery. METHODS: Focus group methodology was chosen as the primary method of data collection to encourage shared understandings, as well as permit expression of specific, individual views. Participants were considered eligible to participate if they had either experienced or were anticipating surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis within 12 months, were between the ages of 10 and 18 years of age, and were English-speaking. RESULTS: Two focus groups consisting of 8 adolescents (1 male, 7 female) and subsequent individual interviews with 3 adolescents (1 male, 2 female) yielded a range of participant concerns, in order of prominence: (1) recovery at home; (2) recovery in hospital; (3) post-surgical appearance; (4) emotional impact of surgery and coping; (5) intrusion of surgery and recovery of daily activities; (6) impact of surgery on school, peer relationships and other social interactions; (7) decision-making about surgery; (8) being in the operating room and; (9) future worries. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, adolescents welcomed the possibility of an accessible, youth-focused website with comprehensive and accurate information that would include the opportunity for health professional-moderated, online peer support.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".