Personal and environmental factors and household assistance in Down syndrome: cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to a biopsychosocial framework, personal and environmental factors might be mediators or facilitators/barriers, respectively, to functioning. However, it is not known how these factors can impact independence in household chores in children/adolescents with Down syndrome (DS). This study explored whether and how personal/environmental factors are associated with the independence level in household chores of children/adolescents with DS in Brazil. Caregivers of twenty-eight children/adolescents with DS were interviewed using the CHORES and a standardized questionnaire about personal (child's age and sex) and environmental (socioeconomic level and maternal schooling) factors. Multiple linear regression analysis identified if/how these factors are associated with level of independence. For CHORES self-care and CHORES total, sex was a significant variable explaining 21.8% and 15.8%, respectively, of the variation in the outcomes. For the outcome CHORES family care none of the variables was significant. Female sex was associated with a lower need for assistance. We conclude that only the personal factor assessed related to female sex in children with DS was associated with the independence level in household chores. This finding highlights the importance of health care providers and families to encourage the independence in chores regardless of sex and promote opportunities for both boys and girls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".