Best practice principles for management of children with developmental coordination disorder (<scp>DCD</scp>): results of a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a prevalent health condition that is frequently unrecognized despite the substantial evidence that has accumulated regarding how it affects children's health, education and skills. Most literature focuses on measurement of impairment and description of intervention approaches for individual children; little is known about the principles that should guide best practice and service delivery for children with DCD as a population. The purpose of this study was to identify these principles. METHODS: A scoping review was used to 'map' the information available to inform intervention and service delivery. Scholarly and grey literature written in English was identified in six databases, using a combination of keywords (e.g. guidelines, management, models and DCD); a 'snow-balling' technique was also used in Canada and the UK to access clinical protocols used in publicly funded health care systems. Over 500 documents were screened: 31 met inclusion criteria as they outlined practice principles for children with DCD as a population. Data regarding best practices were independently extracted by two reviewers and then compared with achieve consistency and consensus. RESULTS: Two over-arching themes emerged, with five principles: (1) Organizing services to efficiently meet the comprehensive needs of children (e.g. Increasing awareness of DCD and coordination; Implementing clearly defined pathways; Using a graduated/staged approach); (2) Working collaboratively to offer evidence-based services (e.g. Integration of child and family views; Evidence-based interventions fostering function, participation and prevention). CONCLUSION: Numerous documents support each of the principles, reflecting agreement across studies about recommended organization of services. While these principles may apply to many populations of children with disabilities, this review highlights how essential these principles are in DCD. Researchers, managers, clinicians, community partners and families are encouraged to work together in designing, implementing and evaluating interventions that reflect these principles.
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 | 0.117 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".