Family‐centred outcome measurement following paediatric stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Therapy programmes aim to provide services that are family-centred and address the specific needs of children. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting system (PEGS) are two measures that are available to assist in determining therapy priorities for children and their parents; however, the use of these measures has not been documented for children who have sustained a stroke. This project aimed to describe the functional concerns identified by children and their parents following paediatric stroke. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional design was used. A total of 26 children were recruited from a paediatric stroke outpatient clinic, and functional concerns were identified using either the COPM or the PEGS. RESULTS: Children and their parents identified similar issues. Of the 26 participants, 23 (88.5%) reported ongoing functional concerns at three months or more following stroke, whereas three participants did not identify any ongoing functional concerns. Functional concerns were grouped into categories of self-care, productivity and leisure as outlined in the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance. Concerns were identified across all functional domains by both children and their parents. CONCLUSIONS: The COPM and PEGS provided useful information about functional issues that are important to children and their parents following paediatric stroke. Use of these client-centred measures provides an opportunity to better understand the impact of paediatric stroke on children's functional abilities, and allows greater scope for service provision and planning for this group of children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".