Health literacy in pediatric thrombosis: a landscape analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health literacy can influence self-management, leading to improved health outcomes in pediatric patients with venous thrombotic events (VTEs). Objectives: To assess general health literacy in adolescents and parents/caregivers of children diagnosed with VTE, and their perception and satisfaction with overall thrombosis-related knowledge, thrombosis knowledge compared to that of other conditions, and beliefs regarding thrombosis knowledge importance. Methods: Patients aged 10 to 18 years with VTE history and parents/caregivers of patients aged 0 to 18 years with VTE attending clinic were recruited in this cross-sectional study. Health literacy was measured using the Rapid Estimate of Literacy in Medicine Short Forms (Adolescent and Adult), the Health Literacy Assessment Scale for Adolescents, and the e-Health Literacy Scale. Self-reported perception, satisfaction, comparative knowledge, and beliefs regarding thrombosis knowledge were assessed using researcher-generated questions. Results: In total, 101 participants (50 adolescents, 51 parents/caregivers) were recruited at a median of 27 months (25th-75th percentile; 12-62 months) post-VTE diagnosis. Overall, 74% of adolescents and 59% of parents/caregivers had ≥1 measure indicating low general health literacy. Only half the participants thought their thrombosis knowledge was similar to that of other diseases. Satisfaction with thrombosis-related knowledge was 44%; 96% agreed that learning about thrombosis was important. Adolescents reported higher satisfaction with their knowledge than parents/caregivers, but satisfaction was not associated with demonstrated thrombosis knowledge. Conclusion: Most participants had low general health literacy levels, and more than half were not satisfied with their thrombosis-related knowledge. Adolescents tended to overestimate their knowledge. Effective strategies to support health literacy in this population are needed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".