Impact of a Residential Summer Camp Experience on Children With Sickle Cell Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) has a significant psychosocial impact on affected children. Summer camp has been shown to improve psychological and physical states for children with diabetes and cancer. However, opportunities to attend camp for children with SCD are limited, as many are from low-income families, and many camps are not equipped to care for children with medical complexities. To our knowledge, no literature evaluates how camp can positively affect emotional functioning, social functioning, self-esteem, and physical activity levels in children with SCD. Methods: Children with SCD attending a residential summer camp during 2019 were identified. Participants completed a modified version of the Pediatric Camp Outcome Measure, a validated 29-item questionnaire that evaluates self-esteem, emotional function, social function, and physical activity. Four additional questions related to SCD were included. Results: Nine campers enrolled in the study. Questionnaire results showed a total score of 113.7 (maximum score135, range 84-129), with a self-esteem subscale score of 22.1 (maximum score 25, range 20-25), an emotional subscale score of 32.1 (maximum score 40, range 25-39), a social subscale score of 38.9 (maximum score 45, range 24-45), and a physical activity subscale score of 20.6 (maximum score 25, range 19-25). All campers indicated that they would return to camp. Conclusion: Attending summer camp has a beneficial impact on emotional function, social function, self-esteem, and physical activity. Mean questionnaire scores from children with cardiac disease and cancer are similar to those of children with SCD. Increased funding should be awarded to sickle cell camps to allow for more children to have this beneficial experience.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".