Family‐centered care in children with epilepsy: Evaluating the Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC‐20)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to test whether the five-domain structure of the Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC-20) was observed in a sample of children with epilepsy and, if not, to propose adaptations to improve its utility in this population. METHODS: Data came from the Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Epilepsy Study (HERQULES)-a multicenter prospective cohort study (n = 374) following children 4-12 years of age for 2 years after diagnosis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the applicability of the five domains/factors in a sample of children with epilepsy approximately 6 months following diagnosis (n = 311). Goodness-of-fit statistics were used to examine sources of ill model fit, and modification indices guided the model modification process where there was strong theoretical rationale for changes. RESULTS: The five-factor model described by the originators of the MPOC-20 was found to be inadmissible in children with epilepsy, with four of the five factors demonstrating high correlations (r > 0.85). Upon merging the intercorrelated factors, a two-factor solution with a mediocre fit emerged (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.080, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.902, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.060). Modification indices identified four items as the source of poor model fit. Removing these four items and reperforming the CFA resulted in an adequate model fit and a revised 16-item MPOC (RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.958, SRMR = 0.036). The two factors are "Family/Care Provider Interaction" and "Providing Information." SIGNIFICANCE: Results suggest that the MPOC-16 better reflects family-centered care (FCC) in children with epilepsy than the original MPOC-20. The benefit of having fewer factors is that scoring is simpler and the interpretation of the results is easier. This was the first investigation of the factor structure of the MPOC-20 on a sample entirely composed of children with epilepsy. These results add to evidence that the factor structure (and how family-centered care is delivered and perceived) differs across treatment environments and treatment populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".