Optimising leisure participation: a pilot intervention study for adolescents with physical impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of an intervention to improve participation in leisure activities of adolescents with physical impairments by changing aspects of the activity or environment. METHODS: A pre-test/post-test pilot study of a multi-strategy intervention was used to explore the effectiveness of the strategies and to determine whether the intervention was practical to apply in a community setting. The intervention involved establishing adolescent and family focused goals, measuring and addressing environmental barriers and building activity performance skills. The Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure measured outcomes. RESULTS: Eight participants (aged 12-19 years; five males) with physical disabilities set participation goals using a structured approach. Analysis of personal and environmental barriers and facilitators for participation guided the choice of intervention strategies to support goal attainment. The natural environment, government policies and availability of transport were identified as the most frequent barriers to participation in leisure. Support to secure appropriate devices to enable participation was commonly required. As a group, attainment of 12 of 17 GAS goals, and progress on four more goals, was demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention model was applicable and practical to use in a community therapy setting and the majority of the participation goals set were achieved. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: This ICF-based intervention model was applicable and practical to use in a community therapy setting. The majority of the adolescent's leisure participation goals were achieved following engagement in the multi-strategy intervention. Adolescents with sufficient communication skills (CFCS Levels I-III) benefited from a group-based intervention in addition to individualised support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".