Evaluating quality of life in pediatric palliative care: a cross-sectional analysis of children’s and parents’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patient's perspective is an essential component of understanding the individual experience of suffering in children with palliative needs, but it is a perspective that is often overlooked. The aim of this study was to compare the perception of quality of life (QoL) of children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions expressed by the children themselves and their parents. Through a cross-sectional study, the responses of 44 parent-child dyads were obtained and the analysis was performed with the statistics based on Student's t distribution and non-parametric tests. Children value QoL more positively (mean = 6.95, SD = 1.85) than their parents (mean = 5.39, SD = 2.43). This difference exists even if we consider sociodemographic and disease variables. The presence of exacerbated symptoms is the situation in which both parents (mean = 3.70; SD = 1.95) and children (mean = 5.60; SD = 1.17) evaluate QoL more negatively. CONCLUSIONS: Children have a more optimistic view than their parents. When the child is the one who reports a lower QoL score than their parent, the child should be carefully monitored. The voice of the child and that of the family members can be collected to create a "family voice" and can be complementary. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Children with life-limiting conditions experience multiple and changing symptoms that affect their QoL. • The child's perspective is often overlooked. WHAT IS NEW: • Children value QoL more positively than their parents do, even if we control for sociodemographic variables and the disease itself. • When the child is the one who reports a lower QoL score than their parent, the child should be carefully monitored.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".