Stress, anxiety, depression, and health‐related quality of life in caregivers of children with intestinal failure receiving parenteral nutrition: A cross‐sectional survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved survival rates for children with intestinal failure (IF) have resulted in an increased population of children receiving long-term parenteral nutrition (PN). Our objective was to determine burden on caregivers of children with IF receiving long-term PN. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of caregivers of children with IF receiving long-term PN in our intestinal rehabilitation program. A healthy comparison group matched on age of the child was enrolled. All participants completed standardized questionnaires, including the Parental Stress Index - Short Form (PSI-SF), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and PedsQL Family Impact Module (PedsQL FIM). Univariate analysis was completed using a Student t test and chi-square, with an alpha value of <0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Thirty-eight caregivers of children with IF and 29 caregivers of healthy children consented, with response rates of 89% and 96.5%, respectively. Our study demonstrated increased stress for caregivers compared with comparison parents (PSI-SF total score of 83 [SD = 26.8] vs 62.9 [SD = 13.5]; P < 0.01). Caregivers had increased anxiety (HADS anxiety score of 9.3 [SD = 4.8] vs 6.7 [SD = 3.2]; P = 0.02) and higher depression scores (HADS depression score of 6.3 [SD = 4.3] vs 4.1 [SD = 2.6]; P = 0.02) compared with the comparison group. Caregivers of children with IF demonstrated decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (reduced PedsQL FIM total score of 50.6 [SD = 18.2] vs 84.1 [SD = 20.5]; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated significant burden of care in caregivers of children with IF receiving long-term PN, with elevated stress, anxiety, and depression and decreased HRQoL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".