Children's and parents' beliefs regarding the value of walking: rehabilitation implications for children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking for children with cerebral palsy (CP) has physiological and functional benefits, but also holds symbolic significance that largely remains unexplored. The aims of this pilot study were to describe beliefs about the value of walking held by children with CP and their parents, and to examine how these beliefs inform rehabilitation choices and perceptions of 'success'. METHODS: A critical qualitative design was employed. Six parents and six children with CP (Gross Motor Function Classification System III or IV, aged 9 to 18 years) each participated in a private interview. Analyses examined the relationship between dominant social beliefs regarding walking and participants' accounts. RESULTS: Parents' accounts revealed that all adopted a stance of doing something/trying anything as part of being a 'good parent' and maintaining hope. Tapering of walking interventions contributed to feelings of guilt and doubt. Children primarily viewed walking as exercise rather than functional. Their accounts also demonstrated how they internalized negative attitudes towards disability and judged themselves accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study provide provisional evidence regarding how dominant social values regarding walking and disability are taken up by parents and children. They suggest that rehabilitation programmes need to consider how they may unintentionally reinforce potentially harmful choices, and how best to engage families in discussions of their evolving values and treatment priorities. Further research is needed with a larger sample.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".