Comparison between the health-related quality of life of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers, comparing the two. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, with a strategy of searching five health-related databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, SciELO, and LILACS). We included studies that evaluated the HRQoL of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers with the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire, respectively, using the total scores and the scores on the domains activity limitation, symptoms (children/adolescents only), and emotional function. RESULTS: We identified 291 articles, and we evaluated 133 of those. A total of 33 articles, collectively including 4,101 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. An analysis stratified by study design showed no differences between the HRQoL of the caregivers and that of the children/adolescents in the activity limitation domain and in the total score. However, the mean emotional function domain scores were significantly higher (better) among children/adolescents with asthma than among their caregivers in longitudinal studies-Δ = 0.82 (0.21-1.44)-and randomized clinical trials-Δ = 0.52 (0.29-0.79)-although not in cross-sectional studies-Δ = -0.20 (-0.03 to 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: The total HRQoL scores proved to be similar between children/adolescents with asthma and their caregivers. However, the two groups differed in their perception of their emotional function, the caregivers scoring significantly lower than the children/adolescents in that domain.
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 | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".