MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613924298 · doi:10.1080/02739615.2017.1328600

Psychosocial interventions to improve social functioning of children and adolescents with chronic physical conditions: A systematic review

2017· review· en· W2613924298 on OpenAlexafffund
Paula Forgeron, Sará King, Jessica Reszel, Karine Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren s Health Care · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMount Saint Vincent UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
KeywordsPsychosocialLonelinessPsychological interventionProsocial behaviorPsychologyPopulationIntervention (counseling)Systematic reviewClinical psychologyInclusion (mineral)MedicineMEDLINEDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review of studies evaluating the effect of psychosocial interventions on social functioning in youth (aged 8–18 years) with chronic physical health conditions was conducted. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 13 studies met inclusion criteria. Format and content of interventions and outcome measures varied significantly across studies, precluding meta-analysis. Despite small effect sizes, the findings provide promising support for decreased loneliness and peer problems following intervention, as well as improvements in prosocial behaviors and social acceptance. Many interventions focused largely on communicating about the health condition and were not designed to address a broad range of social difficulties. Targeted interventions to address the unique social challenges of this population may result in improved social functioning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren s Health CareSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207