Motivational techniques to improve self-care in hemophilia: the need to support autonomy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In pediatric hemophilia, caregivers are facing unique challenges to adherence and self-care in children and adolescents with hemophilia. Hemophilia treatment requires adequate prophylaxis and on-demand treatment, as well as a clear behavioral strategy to limit risk-taking in terms of physical exercise and diet. Medication adherence rates of hemophilia patients have been reported to decrease during late childhood and adolescence. In the developing child, moving safely from parent-care to self-care is one of the greatest challenges of integrative care within this domain. There is a clear need for initiatives designed to increase an individual's motivation for treatment and self-care activities. DISCUSSION: Among motivational approaches, the self-determination perspective offers a useful framework to explain how the transition to self-care can be facilitated. We discuss how motivation regarding hemophilia treatment may be increased through parental autonomy support and we offer examples of applied communication techniques to facilitate autonomy-supportive caregiving. Although it has not yet been tested in the context of hemophilia, these communication techniques could potentially help caregivers promote adherence and self-care in children. Confronted by unique challenges to adherence and self-care, caregivers of children with hemophilia should move from an exclusive focus on illness-management education to an integrative strategy, including motivation-enhancing communication. The self-determination perspective provides important proximal objectives (e.g. autonomy support) to maintain optimal adherence in adolescents as they move from parent-care to self-care. Future research initiatives should address the practice of these communication techniques and evaluate them in the context of hemophilia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".