Covert fears and anxiety in asthma and congenital heart disease<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare anxiety, fears and behavioural problems in children with asthma and children with congenital heart disease, and with the normative population. To also review the influence of maternal anxiety, time since diagnosis and severity of disease. DESIGN: Children administered Fear Survey Scale (FSSC-R) and Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (R-CMAS). Mothers given Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) and State Trait Anxiety Scale (STAI-S and STAI-T). Normative means and SDs compared with means and SDs for both medical groups. The mother's scores on the STAI-S and STAI-T scales were correlated with the child's scores on the FSSC-R and the R-CMAS. SETTING: Outpatient Asthma and Cardiology multidisciplinary Clinics at a tertiary care paediatric facility, Alberta Children's Hospital. SUBJECTS: Forty children with asthma (aged 6--17 years) were compared with 39 children with congenital heart disease. Intake questionnaires and interviews determined these children to be without obvious psycho-social problems. RESULTS: Children with asthma and children with congenital heart disease had more medical fears, and more physiological anxiety than normative samples. Increased maternal anxiety was correlated in both groups with increased child anxiety, medical fears and behavioural problems in the child. Similarly, increased severity of asthma or cardiac problems was associated with more physiological anxiety and more fears. Less time since diagnosis of the disease adversely affected social interactions in both groups of children. CONCLUSION: Physiological anxiety, medical fears and maternal anxiety are important issues requiring attention in asthma and cardiac disease, even in the absence of obvious psychosocial problems. There may be specific problems with a recent diagnosis of a chronic illness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".