Is there a link between the activity levels of parents and their children with cystic fibrosis? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Increased exercise levels result in decreased pulmonary exacerbations and hospitalisations in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). There is a clear link in the literature between parental activity levels and that of their children, though this not reported in CF. Objective To investigate whether there is a link between activity levels of parents and children with CF. Method A literature search was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the importance of parental activity and other behavioural factors on children’s activity levels. Two investigators screened titles and abstracts to identify suitable studies using inclusion criteria. A third author reviewed discrepancies with eight articles selected for review. Relevant data was extracted from accepted studies using agreed criteria. Discussion A narrative synthesis was used. The data showed multiple outcome measures discussing adherence and treatment levels within children and young people with CF. Questionnaires were the most commonly used tool to establish activity levels. There were multiple psychosocial programmes effectively used in people with CF. There was limited evidence on the impact parents play on a child’s activity levels or their adherence to treatment. Conclusion There is currently no clear link between parental activity levels and activity levels for children with CF, or adherence to physiotherapy treatment in CF. Evidence shows that family-based interventions can increase a child’s adherence to a variety of CF related treatments. Limitations There is limited research currently published in this area meaning that only eight studies were included for review. Selected studies used a range of methodologies making data analysis and synthesis challenging.
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 | 0.013 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".