MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2763968069 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx086.009

USE OF AN IMPAIRMENT CARD FOR DEVELOPMENTAL/PSYCHIATRIC PAEDS IN THE OFFICE SETTING

2017· article· en· W2763968069 on OpenAlexaff
Roxanne Goldade

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelegatePsychologyPsychiatryReport cardTest (biology)Cognitive impairmentMedicineCognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In my Community Paediatrics Office, I am asked daily: Is my child or teen’s behaviour abnormal? When do we need to do something about it? Or there may be some disagreement betweem caregivers about a diagnosis and its significance. How often do we hear a story when one parent thinks that the child DOES have ADHD and the other parent disagrees? The answer is in the DSM V when we speak about impairment. Is the behaviour causing “significant impairment” most of the time, almost every day? We do not have a blood test nor a scan to diagnose developmental, behavioural and psychiatric disorders. What we have is subjective criteria per the DSM V. And so, I developed an Impairment Card (printed on Business Card Stock paper) that I can pull out and hand to the parents and child/teen to get a sense of impairment. This card has allowed me to dialogue with parents, children/teens and teachers about their challenges. It allows us to consider a “diagnose” or “disorder” and inform families about the need to DO something about the behaviour (whether it’s the need to obtain an assessment, get the child/family into therapy or consider trying or changing a medication). My hope is present the idea of an Impairment Card that would be used in the office setting. At the CPS Conference, I intend to hand out the card(s) to any CPS delegate who inquires about the use of the Impairment Card. OBJECTIVES: I developed the card to use in my office to try and generate conversation about the question of when a behaviour or mood is considered normal vs abnormal. The card states: Is there a sense that your child/teen’s emotions, behaviour and/or inattention is significantly affecting: a) School / Academics / Learning? b) Self-Esteem? c) Friendships? d) The Environment? - Home. - School. - Job. I wanted to know if such a card would be helpful to children, their parents and teachers in giving common/easy language to complex behavioural and psychiatric diagnoses. DESIGN/METHODS: The card is used to direct conversation at every visit. Let me provide you with two examples: A 7 year old child is sent to my office with a “strong will” and features of ADHD. Or a 12 year old has features of Anxiety. When do we give a diagnosis of ADHD or ODD? When is it called an Anxiety Disorder? We have DSM V criteria of ADHD, ODD and Anxiety: a) I would walk through the diagnostic criteria with the parents and/or child. b) I would ask them to complete rating scales. c) But an final question relates to HOW impairing is their inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, defiance or anxiety. I might ask questions / invite commentary such as: a) All of us have features of inattention or anxiety and some anger. But if it is impairing our tasks of daily living (school, self-esteem, friends, our environment), then we have a problem that we need to acknowledge. b) Is the inattention, hyperactivity, anxiety, defiance happening most of the time, almost every day? c) Is the child’s Anxiety impairing them academically? Is there hyperactivity/inattention impairing their ability to learn? d) Is their self-esteem falling because of their anxiety or inattention? e) Is their Anxiety and/or Hyperactivity/Anger affecting their ability to develop friendships? f) Is their child’s Anxiety and/or Hyperactivity/Anger affecting their home life? Are they driving their parents crazy? Are they driving the teachers crazy? This is actually not dissimilar to when we complain of our knee or shoulder hurting. Our own sense of impairment is going to drive our plans to take time off work and present to the doctor or the ER. It’s the same with behavioural and psychiatric issues. Impairment drives what we do. RESULTS: The information/feedback I’ve received from parents, children/teens and teachers has made me aware how valuable the Impairment Card is in my office: a) The card is VERY simple to use. There is no need for big/complex/onerous forms to complete. b) The parents can take it away in their wallet and pull it out at the parent-teacher interview to invite dialogue at school from the teachers about impairment at school. c) The card invites parents to talk between themselves about the sense of impairment and how we all have our own subjective sense of how bad (or good) the sitaution is. Impairment also varies with time and context. d) I’ve had teachers ask me to send them cards so that they can pull it out at the P-T interviews. e) Commentary about “impairment” now comes out at every visit (first visit and every follow up visit). And I have a stamp in my EMR to routinely bring the subject up. f) Parents very much appreciate the statement that a child’s behaviour can be very impairming for their own (mom/dad’s) mental health and the “health” of the household. CONCLUSION: The Impairment Card is VERY easy to use and hand out in an office setting. The Card invites conversation about impairment. I ask the parents to go home and talk regularly with their spouses, teachers and the kids about how “impairing” their child’s behaviour is. It has become an immensely useful tool in my office to help me explain when a behaviour becomes a “disorder”. And more important, it help drive understanding and change.(Fig 1)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.017

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→