MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Context therapy: a new intervention approach for children with cerebral palsy

2011· article· en· W1753942135 on OpenAlexafffund
Johanna Darrah, Mary Law, Nancy Pollock, Brenda Wilson, Dianne J Russell, Stephen D. Walter, Peter Rosenbaum, Barb Galuppi

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaNational Institutes of HealthMcMaster University
KeywordsCerebral palsyIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Task (project management)Protocol (science)RehabilitationPsychologyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapistPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To describe the development of context therapy, a new intervention approach designed for a randomized controlled trial. METHOD: Therapists were trained to change task and environmental factors to achieve parent-identified functional goals for children with cerebral palsy. Therapists did not provide any remediation strategies to change the abilities of the child. Theoretical constructs were developed using dynamic systems theory and the principles of family-centered care. A primary therapist model was used. A three-step intervention strategy was developed. RESULTS: Therapists adhered to the treatment protocol. Parents participated in the development of both functional goals and intervention strategies. INTERPRETATION: A therapy approach focusing on changing the task and the environment rather than children's impairments can be a viable treatment strategy and merits further investigation. The detailed description of the context therapy approach allows replication by both researchers and clinicians. Such intervention descriptions are an important methodological consideration in rehabilitation research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations174
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207