Development of the Quality of Teen Trauma Acute Care Patient and Parent-Reported Experience Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) provide valuable patient feedback on quality of care and have been associated with clinical outcomes. We tested the reliability of a modified version of an adult trauma PREM on injured adolescents and their parents, adding questions on school, social, and family accommodation. Results: Test-retest reliability was assessed using Cohen’s kappa, weighted kappa, and percent agreement between responses. Directionality of changed responses was noted. Most of the study ran during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified poorer reliability among constructs that varied from the norm during the pandemic, including maintenance of social networks, need of supports for school and follow-up care. Parents appeared to have more directionality of change of responses with reporting more negative in-hospital and more positive post-discharge experiences over time between the test and retest. Situational factors due to the COVID-19 pandemic and potential risks of recall bias may have limited the reliability of some parts of the survey. Retesting of this new PREM instrument outside of the context of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as delivering it in 2 phases to reduce the risk of recall bias may result in stronger reliability of the tool.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".