MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2050070608 · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03275.x

Putting child development back into developmental disabilities

2009· editorial· en· W2050070608 sur OpenAlexaff
Peter Rosenbaum

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2009
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueFamily and Disability Support Research
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntervention (counseling)Cerebral palsyPsychologySimplicityChild developmentFunction (biology)Service (business)Developmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatryEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the heady, early days of my training as a developmental paediatrician at the Wolfson Centre, London, my mentor, Professor Kenneth Holt, introduced me to the idea of cerebral palsy and other neurological disorders as ‘developmental’ disabilities. I had difficulty grasping that concept – a result not of Kenneth’s patient teaching but of the power of the traditional biomedical model of ‘assessment–diagnosis–treatment’ that had been ingrained into us as 1960s medical students. It has taken many years to realize the obvious simplicity of what I was being taught. At a basic level, ‘neurodevelopmental disabilities’ are conditions involving the developing nervous system that have, or are likely to have an impact on the trajectory of that child’s development. This self-evident truth might have been apparent to others for a long time, so I hope people will forgive me for exposing my own delayed development of a conceptual understanding of this important idea. Let me offer three implications of this concept as a way of suggesting an expanded and perhaps refocused approach to intervention, treatment, and management of neurodevelopmental disorders of childhood. The first idea concerns the importance for us as service providers to attend to children’s development as the primary goal of whatever we are trying to accomplish with any advice we offer to parents. We need always to ask questions such as: What are the developmental (as distinct from the biomedical) goals we hope to achieve with this treatment? Will a change in the body structure and function aspects of this child’s status be associated with changes in function and development that matter to that child and family? What are the developmental stages that are important to the child at this time – and what are we doing to help the child realize those activities? Our traditional assumptions have been that we need to work on ‘impairments’ in order to promote function – assumptions that are somewhat questionable in light of recent work that has explicitly explored this question.1 At the same time, unless we strive to promote function with all the means at our disposal, we may be missing opportunities to enhance overall development, as was done with Butler’s pioneering work.2,3 The second idea is the essential need to counsel parents about the developmental as well as the biomedical aspects of neurodevelopmental conditions. Parenting is a dance led by the child; I encourage everyone who is a parent to reflect on this idea. What I mean is that as parents most of what we do in our interactions with our children is essentially reactive to their constant initiatives throughout childhood. Think of a typical toddler’s relentless mobility, or the 3-year-old’s development of language through constant explorations with questions that ask ‘Why?’ When children cannot ‘dance’ easily (i.e. develop in a typical manner) parents can be puzzled and seriously challenged about what they can do to help their child whose ability to initiate is constrained by their disorder. Traditional beliefs about therapy must be complemented by constant discussions with parents about what a child at a particular age or stage would typically be doing. We must then challenge ourselves and parents to accommodate the child’s functional differences and limitations to enable the child to achieve as much as possible of those developmentally appropriate activities as a bridge to learning – even when the function is achieved differently from ‘normal’. Finally, these approaches have important considerations for research. If we accept this expansion of the conceptual foundations on which we base our treatments, and increase the focus on developmental achievements, oughtn’t we to evaluate both children’s and parents’ development? It is my guess that we are missing opportunities to assess aspects of our interventions as they affect families – both their physical and emotional well-being,4 and their understanding of how to meet the challenges of parenting a child with a disability. This is in no way to suggest that we have had it all wrong until now. Rather I believe that there are opportunities both to make a difference for children with developmental disabilities and their families, and to evaluate these broader perspectives of our work.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,297
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0220,009

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,298 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetFamily and Disability Support ResearchTravaux en français237 207