A Qualitative Description of the Development and Evaluation of <i>Our Voice,</i> a Health Promotion Magazine Created by Pediatric Patients for Hospitalized Pediatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To facilitate a peer-developed health promotion magazine that provides health education and engages hospitalized pediatric patients during a hospital admission. To evaluate patient satisfaction with the content and layout of the magazine and its impact on patients' attitudes toward healthy living. METHODS: A pediatric resident-led multidisciplinary team collaborated with the Children's Council at The Hospital for Sick Children to create a health promotion magazine for inpatients. Articles included a scavenger hunt, healthy recipes, physical activities, hospital staff interviews, and patient stories. Patients 7 to 18 years of age admitted to Pediatric Medicine or Respirology were invited to read the magazine and complete a questionnaire 24 hours later on their satisfaction with the magazine and their attitudes regarding healthy living. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received a copy of the magazine, and 24 patients completed the questionnaire (mean 13.4 years, 54% female, 25% overweight/obese). Eleven of 24 (46%) read the entire magazine, and 19 of 23 (83%) reported learning. The exercises, recipes, and patient stories were most liked. Ten of 24 (42%) participants performed the exercises; the most common reason for not trying an exercise was pain. After reading the magazine, 15 of 24 (65%) patients reported that they will try to be more active, and 11 of 23 (48%) reported that they will try to eat more fruits and vegetables. Eighty-three percent were interested in a future edition. CONCLUSIONS: A health promotion magazine created by patients for patients changed patient-reported attitudes about healthy living. Peer-led interventions in the inpatient setting may be an important opportunity to promote healthy lifestyles and require further 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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".