Improving education and coping of scoliosis patients undergoing surgery, and their families, using e-health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Healthcare providers have limited time to spend with scoliosis patients who are considering surgery and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an e-health strategy to increase knowledge and coping in patients with scoliosis who are surgical candidates and their families. METHODS: We enrolled patients with scoliosis who were candidates for surgery and their families. Patients and their families completed the scoliosis knowledge questionnaire, meaning of illness questionnaire, social support and coping questionnaires before and after access to a comprehensive evidence-based scoliosis website ( http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/scoliosis ). RESULTS: Seventy-four patients and 71 parents completed the evaluation. While both patients and parents improved their knowledge of scoliosis (p = 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively), the scores of patients were consistently lower than those of the parents both before and after website use (p = 0.0001). Only parents demonstrated a change in the meaning of illness questionnaire, with a small increase in the negative attitude towards illness and a small decrease in the positive attitude towards illness (p = 0002 and p = 0.01, respectively). Of the 12 coping methods examined on the Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences (A-COPE) instrument, patients were slightly more likely than parents to use relaxing and solving family problems as tools to cope following website access (p = 0.02 and p = 0.09, respectively). Parents demonstrated no significant changes in the four methods of coping on the Coping Health Inventory for Parents (CHIP) after website exposure. While the majority of patients and parents reported receiving sufficient support, over half of the patients indicated a need for more support in social participation. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based website increased the knowledge of patients and parents but simply providing access to the website had minimal impact on their coping and perceptions of social support. The website, however, provides users with the opportunity to absorb vital information about scoliosis across several media.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".