Systematized literature review on the effectiveness of self-management programs for juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-management skills are critical in chronic diseases such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We conducted a systematized review to synthesize the components and effectiveness of existing self-management programs (SMPs) for adolescents with JIA. Relevant literature was identified from four databases (PsychINFO, CINAHL, Medline (Ovid), and Embase) to February 2024. Inclusion criteria were original, full-text research articles published in the English language which described the components and effectiveness of SMPs conducted in adolescent populations with JIA. A total of 785 articles were reviewed, with 17 meeting the inclusion criteria. In addition to demographic characteristics, we extracted information on the intervention components (theoretical base, facilitator, delivery setting, intervention format, length and duration, activities, parental involvement), outcome scales, and effectiveness outcome measures (e.g., pain reduction, self-efficacy). The components and outcome measures varied between interventions and only four interventions used an RCT design. The majority of interventions consisted of multiple in-person sessions with fourteen of the seventeen studies reporting a sample size of 46 or fewer adolescents. Programs were delivered individually, and facilitated by a healthcare provider, study investigator, or trained coach. Most studies did not describe theoretical foundations. Ten studies demonstrated significant improvements in reported effectiveness measures. Many of the studies with significant findings reported poor intervention adherence and high attrition. A variety of SMPs exist for adolescents with JIA without clear indication of the essential components to yield improved outcomes. The results revealed the need for refining design, evaluation of SMPs, and innovation in in delivery mechanisms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".