Measuring adherence in pediatric hemophilia patients: French-language adaptation of the VERITAS-Pro and VERITAS-PRN and psychometric properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veritas-Pro and Veritas-PRN are instruments to assess adherence to treatment of people with hemophilia. Low adherence can limit treatment effectiveness and result in increased bleeding episodes and chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to adapt both questionnaires into French, report preliminary psychometric data in a group of pediatric patients and their parents, and compare ratings between young patients and their parents. The translation process followed these steps: (1) forward translation (2) backward translation (3) final version, and (4) testing. Translators were familiar with the pediatric community. Thirteen pediatric patients and twenty parents participated in the study. The translation process was conducted without major difficulties, and children easily understood the French versions. Preliminary psychometric analyses showed good to excellent consistency for the total scale and most subscales. However, the consistency of the Dose (VERITAS-Pro) and the Plan (VERITAS-PRN) subscales were low. When pediatric patients were primary infusers, they reported more skipping of prophylaxis than in parents’ estimation of their behavior. For episodic treatment, when parents were primary infusers, they reported better adherence for the Time subscale vs. children’s estimation of their behavior. Parents also rated higher adherence on prophylaxis when they were themselves in charge of performing the infusions than when young patients were autonomous. Preliminary psychometric analyses support the use of the French versions for the total scale and most subscales. However, the results did not support the use of the subscales Dose (VERITAS-Pro) and Plan (VERITAS-PRN) in the adapted versions. Further studies should be performed on larger samples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".