Parent Perspectives on Addressing Emotional Health for Children and Young Adults With Juvenile Myositis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess parent perspectives regarding the emotional health impact of juvenile myositis (JM) on patients and families, and to assess preferences for emotional health screening and interventions. METHODS: Parents of children and young adults with JM were purposively sampled for participation in focus groups at the Cure JM Foundation National Family Conference in 2018. Groups were stratified by patient age group (6-12, 13-17, and 18-21 years), and conversations were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and co-coded via content analysis, with subanalysis by age group. A brief survey assessed preferences for specific emotional health interventions. RESULTS: Forty-five parents participated in 6 focus groups. Themes emerged within 2 domains: emotional challenges, and screening and interventions. Themes for emotional challenges comprised the impact of JM on: 1) patient emotional health, particularly depression and anxiety; 2) parent emotional health characterized by sadness, grief, anger, guilt, and anxiety; and 3) family dynamics, including significant sibling distress. Subanalysis revealed similar themes across age groups, but the theme of resiliency emerged specifically for young adults. Themes for emotional health screening and interventions indicated potential issues with patient transparency, several barriers to resources, the facilitator role of rheumatology providers, and preferred intervention modalities of online and in-person resources, with survey responses most strongly supporting child/parent counseling and peer support groups. CONCLUSION: JM is associated with intense patient and family distress, although resiliency may emerge by young adulthood. Despite existing barriers, increasing access to counseling, peer support groups, and online resources with rheumatology facilitation may be effective intervention strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".