Child–parent agreement on health-related quality of life in children with newly diagnosed chronic health conditions: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared health-related quality of life scores between children newly diagnosed with chronic health conditions and their parents to identify potential domain discrepancies and quantified the magnitude of discrepancies during a six-month follow-up. Children aged ≥11 years and their parents completed the KIDSCREEN-27. Informant agreement was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman’s limits of agreement. The proportion of child–parent dyads with a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was computed. Children reported higher KIDSCREEN-27 scores for all subscales compared to parents. At baseline and at six months, child–parent agreement was generally low to moderate (ICC = .25–.67) and the proportion of MCID was high (36–79%). Over time, child–parent agreement improved on most domains. These exploratory findings suggest that the agreement between children newly diagnosed with chronic health conditions and their parents is low to moderate and meaningful discrepancies are common, though improve over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".