29 What domains related to medicines were measured in studies of burden of care for paediatric patients? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Medicines are becoming increasingly common for all populations and polypharmacy has been shown to have numerous risks. Although primary studies and reviews have explored the impact of medical conditions on patients and caregivers, there are no known reviews on the impact of medicines on paediatric patients. This systematic review therefore aimed to determine the domains commonly assessed in studies assessing treatment burden in different conditions for paediatric patients and their caregivers. Methods Searches were conducted on Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to find relevant papers. Two reviewers independently screened the papers based on the chosen inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the papers was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. This review was registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285097) and conducted according to PRISMA methodology. Results 6 papers with 8276 participants were identified in this review. The domains most commonly assessed were the perceived effectiveness of medications (4/6 studies), psychosocial impact (3/6 studies) and the impact on work and school (3/6 studies). Other domains included the ease of use of medicines, side effects from medicines, adherence to medicines, time requirements, costs, using healthcare resources and support from family/friends/organisations. Conclusions Studies assessing the burden of care due to medicines assessed a range of domains related to the impact of medicines on patients and caregivers. The results from this review will be used create a questionnaire for a cohort study that aims to determine the impact of polypharmacy on paediatric patients and their parents.
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 | 0.048 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".