Parental Perspectives of the Health Status and Health-Related Quality of Life of Teen-Aged Children Who Were Extremely Low Birth Weight and Term Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the health status and health-related quality of life of teen-aged children who were extremely low birth weight (ELBW) with matched controls from the perspective of their parents. STUDY DESIGN: Geographically defined cohort; longitudinal follow-up; cross-sectional interviews. PARTICIPANTS: parents of 149/169 (88%) ELBW children between 12 and 16 years of age (including 41 children with neurosensory impairments) and 126/145 (87%) parents of term controls. Health status of the teenagers was classified according to the 6 attributes of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2, based on information obtained during parent interviews. Parents were asked to imagine themselves living in their own child's health state and 4 preselected hypothetical health states when providing directly measured standard gamble utility scores. RESULTS: Parents of ELBW children reported a higher frequency and more complex functional limitations than parents of controls for their own children's health status. Also, the mean utilities were lower (ELBW =.91 vs controls =. 97) and the variability in their scores was greater. There were no differences in the valuation of the hypothetical health states provided by parents of ELBW and control children. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW children were reported to have a greater burden of disability than were control children based on parental descriptions. Nonetheless, parents of ELBW children, on average, rated the health-related quality of life of their children fairly high. Thus, differences in reported functional status are not necessarily associated with lower utility scores.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".