Adherence, helpfulness and barriers to treatment in juvenile idiopathic arthritis – data from a German Inception cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate German versions of the Parent Adherence Report Questionnaire (PARQ) and Child Adherence Report Questionnaire (CARQ) and to evaluate adherence in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: The PARQ and CARQ were translated into German, cross-culturally adapted and administered to patients (age ≥ 8 years) and their parents enrolled in the Inception Cohort Study of newly diagnosed JIA patients (ICON). The psychometric issues were explored by analyzing their test-retest reliability and construct validity. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one parents and their children with JIA (n = 465) completed the PARQ and CARQ at the 4-year follow-up. Mean age and disease duration of patients were 10.1 ± 3.7 and 4.7 ± 0.8 years, respectively. The rate of missing values for PARQ/CARQ was generally satisfactory, test-retesting showed sufficient reliability. PARQ/CARQ mean child ability total scores (0-100, 100 = best) for medication were 73.1 ± 23.3/76.5 ± 24.2, for exercise: 85.6 ± 16.5/90.3 ± 15.0, for splints: 72.9 ± 24.2/82.9 ± 16.5. Construct validity was supported by PARQ and CARQ scores for medications, exercise and splints showing a fair to good correlation with the Global Adherence Assessment (GAA) and selected PedsQL scales. Adolescents showed poorer adherence than children. About one third of the parents and children reported medication errors. Perceived helpfulness was highest for medication, and adverse effects were reported the greatest barrier to treatment adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The German versions of the PARQ and CARQ appear to have a good reliability and sufficient construct validity. These questionnaires are valuable tools for measuring treatment adherence, identifying potential barriers and evaluating helpfulness of treatments in patients with JIA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".