Bridging the gap: the role of Physiatrists in caring for adults with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) experience a significant gap in care as they move from interdisciplinary pediatric programs to limited or non-existent care in the adult sector. A lack of knowledgeable adult care providers has repeatedly been identified as a challenge in transitioning those with CP from pediatric to adult care. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which Physiatrists provide care to adults with CP and to identify barriers to their engagement with this population. METHOD: A survey was distributed to Physiatrists across Canada. Results were analyzed descriptively using SPSS software. RESULTS: Most Physiatrists provide care to very few adults with CP (10 or less), but over 80% feel that Physiatry is the most appropriate specialty to provide disability-related care to adults with CP following their pediatric discharge. Among the most frequently identified barriers to caring for this population were lack of accessible resources (i.e. social work, funded therapy, equipment) and lack of referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Physiatrists are willing and appropriate partners in transitioning patients with CP to adult care. Barriers to Physiatrists' engagement with this population appear to be amenable to change. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: A lack of knowledgeable and interested adult practitioners has repeatedly been identified as a challenge in transition planning for young adults with cerebral palsy (the vast majority of whom survive into adulthood). Physiatrists are ideally suited to manage adults with cerebral palsy, yet in this survey-based study, a majority of Canadian Physiatrists report caring for less than five adults with cerebral palsy on a regular basis. Barriers to further physiatric involvement in this population were reported to include lack of accessible resources and lack of referrals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".