‘He does not see himself as being different’: the perspectives of children and caregivers on relevant areas of functioning in cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In the context of the development of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP), we investigated the strengths and limitations in functioning important to children with CP, through either child self-reports or caregiver proxy reports, using components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (ICF-CY). METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 children with CP (children self-reporting), 10 caregivers of children self-reporting (10 child-caregiver dyads), and 12 caregivers of children not self-reporting. Mean age 10 y 6 mo, range 4-16 y. A convenience sample was recruited representing Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I to V. Interviews were audio-taped and the content covered all of the relevant ICF-CY components. The interviews were then transcribed verbatim and coded in N-Vivo 10 using the ICF-CY coding system. RESULTS: We identified 1956 themes that linked to 175 ICF-CY categories. Most of the themes were represented by the ICF-CY components activities and participation and environmental factors. The children interviewed discussed issues related to mobility, self-care, and recreation and leisure, whereas the caregivers focused more on physical limitations and on the environmental factors associated with everyday activities. INTERPRETATION: The children and their caregivers described many of the same areas of functioning but provided unique perspectives. Children talked more frequently about their abilities with CP, whereas the caregivers interviewed talked more about their concern over the limitations and broader issues facing their child. The findings highlight the need to explore the perspectives of both the child and the caregiver when characterizing the functional profile of children with CP.
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) | 0.001 | 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".