The value of the CoughAssist® in the daily lives of children with neuromuscular disorders: Experiences of families, children and physiotherapists. A brief report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We explored parents', children's and physiotherapists' experiences of regular CoughAssist® use, along with their perceptions of its value as an adjunct to in their daily, home respiratory management. METHODS: All children in the care of a specialist neuromuscular service who regularly used a CoughAssist® device at home participated. Qualitative case study methods involved semi-structured interviews with three children with neuromuscular disorders (NMD), their parents and physiotherapist. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Participants (n = 9) perceived the CoughAssist® held benefits for physical, social and emotional aspects of living with NMD. Poor adherence was identified as the major barrier to effective use, governed by factors including child's resistance, time constraints, treatment preference, practitioner support and fear of pressure trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to regular CoughAssist® use must be identified and individually addressed to enable uptake into respiratory care, accurately measure its effectiveness and realise its perceived benefits to children with NMD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".