Self-Care Behavior Assessment of Fragile School-Age Children: An Application of Orem's Self-Care Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fragile children who were once called; “terminal cases” nowadays are able to live, due to technical advances; although they are requiring permanent assistance. This study aimed to identify the levels of self-care behavior of school-age medically fragile Jordanian children. METHODS & MATERIAL: A cross-sectional design using Orem self-care behavior questionnaire to measure the level of self-care behavior of 96 medically fragile children in capital city (Amman), who hospitalized at least once at the affiliated hospitals. RESULT: 63. 3%, n=61 children had high level of self-care behavior with overall mean = 62.3 SD=20. ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc comparisons of the three groups indicate that the level of self care behavior at the late school age 12-14 years old (mean = 71.56, SD = 4.71) and the early school age 6-9 years (mean = 67.05, SD = 4.73) reported significantly higher than the middle school age 10-12 years old (mean 66.95, SD = 4.37), p = .001. A round half of the children complaining of respiratory disease 42.7%, n=41. CONCLUSION: Performing nursing interventions and providing proper discharge plans for school age children and home care for medically fragile children will be based according to the self-care behavior level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".