Mental and Physical Health Outcomes in Parents of Children with Burn Injuries as Compared with Matched Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric burn injuries are common, and the stress of caring for them can affect caregivers' health. This study's objective was to examine the rates of common mental and physical disorders of parents of burn-injured children (cases) compared with matched controls (controls). This is a population-based study linking the Regional Pediatric burn registry with administrative health information. Pediatric burn cases were matched 1:5 with control children from the general population based on age, sex, and geographical location then parents identified. One thousand and twenty-six parental cases and 4858 controls were identified. International Classification of Disease codes were used to identify diagnoses of common mental and physical disorders. Using rates of disease 2 years before and 2 years after the date of burn, the changes in the relative rates of health outcomes were compared between the cases and the controls. The cases had higher rates of postinjury mental and physical illness compared with the matches. However, it was found that controls also had increased rates postindex date and additionally cases had increased rates of preinjury illnesses. There was no difference in the relative rates of illnesses between the groups from pre- to post-index date. The higher rate of illness in cases postinjury could be explained by preinjury illness, and similar rate increases in the control cohort. Evaluation of the effect of a child's burn injury on parents should take into context the preexisting health of the parent. Socioeconomic factors associated with increased risk of burns may also be associated with adverse health outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".