The IMPACT Questionnaire: A Valid Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND AIMS IMPACT: is a disease-specific health-related quality-of-life questionnaire developed for use in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease through a process of patient interviews and analysis of patient responses to an item-reduction questionnaire. This study sought to assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the instrument. METHODS: The readability statistics and number of unanswered questions were assessed among 147 patients (97 CD, 50 UC) with mean age 14.4 +/- 2.2 years (range 9.2-18.0 years) using the self-administered questionnaire. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was based on a priori hypotheses. Mean total scores were compared by ANOVA among patients grouped according to disease activity and disease severity within the past year. RESULTS: The readability statistic showed a Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of 4.5. Only 0.68% of questions were left blank. Reliability was excellent with Cronbach's alpha = 0.96, and an ICC of 0.90 in patients with stable disease over a two-week period (n = 32). The mean total IMPACT score for patients with quiescent disease (180 +/- 32) was significantly higher (better QOL) than for those with active disease (146 +/- 31 for mild, 133 +/- 34 for moderate/severe) (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT questionnaire is a valid and reliable reflection of health-related quality of life of older children and adolescents with both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".