Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Objective(s): Strong evidence of the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for children with motor difficulties is still lacking, along with how well these interventions are implemented.This study aimed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a Web-based Early Intervention for Children using multimodAl REhabilitation (WECARE).Study Participants & Setting: Two participant groups were involved.Therapists (i.e. two physiotherapists and two occupational therapists) delivering the WECARE intervention, with a mean of 13 years of pediatric experience, were recruited and trained.Although experience in pediatric rehabilitation was required, prior use of telerehabilitation or coaching approaches was not.One hundred and eighteen parents of children aged 3 to 8 years old with motor difficulties living in Quebec, Canada, able to speak English or French, not receiving public rehabilitation services at time of recruitment, and able to identify at least one motor-related functional goal for their child consented to participate.Materials/Methods: To assess implementation, an external rater completed monthly assessments of video-recorded WECARE intervention sessions for adherence, participant responsiveness and intervention quality using an 18item checklist.The WECARE intervention consisted of 30-minute telecoaching sessions offered every 2 weeks for the first 3 months to families randomized to that group.For the remaining 9 months, consultations occurred based on the family's request.Ratings were descriptively analyzed and compared to the intervention protocol.To assess effectiveness, consenting parents were randomized into the WECARE or usual care groups.Those randomized to the control group received care as per the service delivery model available in their jurisdiction.Every 3 months, participants in both groups self-rated their goals using the COPM performance scale and added goals.The number of parent-identified motor goals achieved out of those set, as measured by the COPM, was compared between the groups using a mixed Poisson regression model.Results: Intervention adherence (83%), participant responsiveness (90.5%) and intervention quality (85%) were rated high.Moreover, the WECARE group had 1.12 times more goals achieved compared to the controls (95% CI: 1.00-1.25;p = 0.05).Conclusions/Significance: Telecoaching interventions such as WECARE can be implemented with high fidelity, and support parents of children with motor difficulties in achieving the goals they identify for their child.These findings challenge many traditional therapeutic assumptions which perceive hands-on in-person child-focused interventions as the gold standard for addressing motor difficulties in children.
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 | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,867 | 0,708 |
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 ».