Social participation and hemophilia: Self‐perception, social support, and their influence on boys in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients with hemophilia may experience joint damage, which can impair participation, yet few studies have examined the impact hemophilia may have on social participation and quality of life. Objectives The aims of this study are to assess the relationship between patient social participation and self‐perception, social support, and impact on the family. Patients/Methods A random representative sample of 50 boys with hemophilia from The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, completed measures of social participation (Participation Scale for kids), self‐perception (Self‐Perception Profile for children and adolescents), and social support (Social Support Scale for children). Participants' parents completed Family Impact Module of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory. Data were analyzed using Pearson product‐moment correlations. Results Social participation was strongly correlated with self‐perception subscales Social Acceptance ( r = −0.5, p = <0.001) and Global Self‐Worth ( r = −0.6, p = <0.001) for all participants. The Athletic Competence subscale was strongly correlated for adolescents only ( r = −0.6, p = <0.01). There were strong correlations between social participation and social support from parents ( r = −0.6, p = <0.001), teachers ( r = −0.5, p = <0.001), and classmates ( r = −0.6, p = <0.001) and moderate correlations for support from close friends ( r = −0.4, p = <0.01). There were no significant correlations with family impact. Conclusion In the context of a country with unlimited access to safe clotting factor concentrates, boys with hemophilia have few social participation restrictions. Although correlational findings do not represent causality, they suggest that encouragement of social participation may be beneficial in boys with hemophilia to increase self‐perception as well as strengthen their social support network.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".