Commentary on “Comparative Effectiveness Research and Children With Cerebral Palsy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
“How could I apply the information?” Clinicians use the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework as a foundation for thinking about health and disability, and as a guide when choosing outcome measures. Andersen's model, the conceptual framework for this research, is complimentary to the ICF and addresses measurement gaps related to satisfaction, quality of life, and service utilization. This article provides a table of measures that represent constructs deemed by a group of North American experts to be important to assess from a population health standpoint. The table describes the purpose/format of each measure, administration time, provides links to further information, and could be used by clinicians and managers to update their assessment practices. The future goal is that population measure information gathered through international use of this measurement approach by pediatric rehabilitation centers will support development of universal practice guidelines. “What should I be mindful about when applying this information?” This article identifies population-level measures, not individual outcomes, yet without clearly defining goals and attributes of a population measure, study recommendations may be difficult for clinicians/managers to interpret. The Gross Motor Function Measure,1,2 an activity-based psychometrically-strong outcome measure that applies across ages and ability levels, is notably absent. However, the discussion does indicate that performance-based measures of gross and fine motor function are “beyond the scope of the project” and require “another iterative process among clinicians, families, and researchers.” Only here does the reader realize that the study's “recommended” final measure set is not complete. Similarly, without definition of a population measure, it is unclear why client-centered, broadly applicable, well-validated outcome measures such as the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure or Goal Attainment Scaling were eliminated as they are easily aggregated into group summary scores. Limited breadth of the expert panel composition may have contributed to the lack of measures representing health outcomes beyond pain. For example, sleep issues are gaining attention given potential strong effect on child/family health.3 In summary, the results are reasonable starting guidelines, but should not be taken as definitive. F. Virginia Wright, PT, PhD Bloorview Research Institute, Toronto, Canada Blythe Dalziel, PT, MScPT Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, Canada
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».