Involving Families with Osteogenesis Imperfecta in Health Service Research: Joint Development of the OI/ECE Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the growing interest in understanding the psycho-social impact of rare genetic diseases, few studies examine this concept and even fewer seek to obtain feedback from families who have lived the experience. The aim of this project was to involve families of children living with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) in the development of a tool to assess the impact of OI on the lives of patients and their families. METHODS: This project used an integrated knowledge translation approach in which knowledge users (clinicians and people living with OI and their families) were consulted throughout the four steps of development, that is: content mapping, item generation, tool appraisal and pre-testing of the questionnaires. The International Classification of Functioning and Health was used as a framework for content mapping. Based on a scoping review we selected two validated tools to use as a basis for developing the questionnaire. The final parent self-report version measured six domains: experience of diagnosis; use of health services; use of social and psychological support services; expectations about tertiary specialized centers; and socio-demographic information. RESULTS: A total of 27 out of 40 families receiving care at the Shriners Hospital for Children-Canada and invited to participate in the pre-test returned the completed questionnaires. In more than two-thirds of families (69%; n = 18) OI was suspected either at or within the first 3 months after birth. Up to 46% of families consulted between 3 and 5 doctors (46%; n = 12) prior to final diagnosis. The use of services by families varied from 0 to 16 consultations, 0 to 9 exploratory examinations and 1 to 10 types of allied health services. In the 12 months prior to the study, fewer than a quarter of children had been admitted, for treatment, for hospital stays of longer than 8 hours or to an emergency department (24% and 9% respectively). Only 29% of parents received psychological support. CONCLUSION: This joint development process generated a tool, with good psychometric properties, that provides unique insight into the experiences of patients and families with OI, the psycho-social impact of the illness, and their service needs and expectations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".