Content Comparison of Health Related Quality of Life Measures for Cerebral Palsy Based on the International Classification of Functioning Children and Youth Version (Icf-Cy)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
alberta children's hospital, calgary, alberta In Canada the estimated prevalence of developmental disabilities in young children ranges between 12% and 17%.Severe developmental problems are often identified early and appropriately.However, more subtle cognitive, motor, and behavioural problems that can have significant impact on a person's life are often under-identified before school age, and the delay in service Results in children and families not benefiting from early intervention.Primary care physicians are in routine contact with young children and their families so they have a uniquely important role in early detection of children with developmental and behavioural problems.Because little is known about developmental-behavioural primary care screening practices in Canada, the objective of this pilot survey was to gather preliminary information from Calgary physicians about their practices and opinions.The broad themes of the survey were methods, tools and barriers associated with developmental screening and surveillance.Three hundred community physicians (200 family physicians and 100 pediatricians) in the Calgary Health Region received a self administered, 66 item, paper and pencil questionnaire, adapted from Sices, et al. (2003).Questions included demographic information about physicians' gender, age and years of practice.All other responses were Likert scaled.Descriptive analyses revealed trends regarding the major themes.Response rate was 24%.Responding Calgary physicians were unlikely to use published questionnaires or formal screening instruments when screening for problems.The majority of physicians were more likely to prompt parents for concerns and to use developmental milestones.However, physicians also indicated that they did not believe parents' concerns are a good substitute for formal developmental screening.Physicians identified barriers such as lack of time and adequate reimbursement and lack of intervention resources.Almost all responding physicians indicated that screening should begin early and should be repeated until three years of age.Most responding physicians had not been formally trained in early developmental-behavioural screening.Although evidence suggests that formal and standardized developmental screening is an effective way to identify children with developmental problems, common challenges persist in changing practice in primary care.Calgary physicians, like others elsewhere, continue to rely on insensitive screening methods such as developmental milestones and clinical impressions.The implications for practice are that if physicians are to take responsibility for developmental surveillance they will need formal training through professional development, or through their resident training programs, about current and valid tools for screening. do childreN With coMPleX disaBilities BeNefit froM cochlear iMPlaNtatioN?
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».