Exploring the impact of pediatric OCD on family impairment: A consideration of parent, sibling, and affected-child perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have examined the perspectives of both affected children/adolescents and their parents on family functioning impacts of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). While siblings play an integral role within the family system, their perspectives have been largely overlooked in the literature. This study examined sibling, parent, and child perspectives of family functioning in pediatric OCD and assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with family functioning. METHODS: Participating families were identified from a larger research registry of 398 patients referred between 2012 and 2020 to the Provincial OCD Program. A total of 185 families who provided data on family functioning from the perspectives of OCD-affected children, siblings and parents were included for study. All family members completed the OCD Family Functioning scale. RESULTS: The extent of perceived impairment differed by family member type, with parents reporting the greatest impacts, followed by OCD-affected children, and then siblings. Predictors of OCD-imposed family dysfunction included family accommodation from all perspectives, clinician-reported child OCD severity, and family blame from parent perspectives. LIMITATIONS: Data are cross-sectional, and we cannot conclude that the observed associations reflect causal effects. Missing data were evident and differed by variable item and family member type. CONCLUSIONS: By providing sibling perspectives within the same family unit, this study expands upon previous findings that accommodation predicts family impairment from parent and child perspectives. Our study highlights factors relevant to family-based interventions in the treatment of pediatric OCD. Clinicians should be aware of the ongoing impacts OCD has on all family members.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".