MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520468214 · doi:10.3233/prm-160388

The effect of supported physical activity on parental-reported sleep qualities and pain severity in children with medical complexity

2016· article· en· W2520468214 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Dodds, Kristie Bjornson, Jane K. Sweeney, Unni Narayanan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Intervention (counseling)Physical therapyMedicineDuration (music)PsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To study the impact of a 5-week supported physical activity (PA) intervention on parental report of sleep qualities, sleep duration, and pain severity in children with medical complexity (CMC). METHODS: Twenty-nine CMC participated in 180 minutes of daily supported PA on weekdays over 5 weeks. A pre- and post-test design was used to collect sleep qualities (Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire) and pain severity (Faces Pain Scale- Revised) as reported by parents. Using a repeated measures design, weekly sleep diaries captured sleep duration. RESULTS: Children with medical complexity experienced no adverse effects, including pain, with the supported PA intervention. Significant improvements in sleep problems, sleep duration, and pain severity (P< 0.05) were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Short-term supported PA did not interfere with sleep or pain in CMC, and in fact, seems to have enhanced parental report of sleep qualities, sleep duration, and pain severity. Supported PA appears safe for CMC and healthcare professionals should explore methods to expand opportunities for supported PA participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207