Awareness and knowledge of developmental co‐ordination disorder among physicians, teachers and parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obtaining a diagnosis of developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) is a long, inconsistent and frustrating journey for families, with apparently little awareness of DCD in schools or the medical community. METHODS: An online survey was completed by 1297 participants: parents (n = 501), teachers (n = 202), family/general physicians (n = 339) and paediatricians (n = 255). RESULTS: Only 20% of the sample had knowledge of DCD, with 41% of the paediatricians and 23% of family/general physicians familiar. Of participants who have awareness, only 11-59% have knowledge of the impact of DCD on social, emotional and physical health. Less than 30% of physicians have awareness of the secondary consequences. Few physicians diagnose DCD and less than one-third believe it is easy to make a diagnosis; this is in contrast to the fact that most parents report confidence in their physician's ability to make a timely diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: If less than one-half of physicians have knowledge of DCD and even fewer are knowledgeable of the secondary consequences of the condition, it is not surprising that DCD is infrequently diagnosed and that families need to search for support. This survey confirms observations that the condition is not well known and there is a need for greater awareness of DCD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".