Patient-reported outcome measures to deliver patient and family-centered care in pediatrics: the ball is now in our court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are self-reported questionnaires that are used to deliver patient and family-centered care, but their use in routine pediatric clinical care remains limited. The American Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends patient-centered care to achieve high quality health care delivery and PROMs can be used in routine pediatric clinical care to support six critical dimensions of patient-centered care endorsed by the IOM. The growing evidence including our systematic review of pediatric PROMs, shows that incorporating PROMs into routine pediatric clinical practice significantly enhances the quality of care and has a positive impact on Health-related Quality of Life (HRQL) among children and youth. Thus, we are sharing our perspectives on the current evidence, emphasizing the need for using PROMs in routine pediatric clinical care and proposing strategies for pediatric implementation.
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 | 0.261 | 0.356 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".