Safe Lifting Training for Mexican Parents of Children with a Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent techniques taught during a two-day educational training on body mechanics for lifting and transferring are learned and can be demonstrated by Mexican parents with their children who have a disability. Three parents of children with a disability who attended a culturally relevant educational training on body mechanics lead by graduate occupational therapy students participated in research on their transfer safety. Their body mechanics were observed and scored while they performed up to four transfers prior to and after attending the educational training. Participants performed significantly better on floor transfers after the educational training with a large effect size (d = 2.83). There was no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-tests for bath transfers, and the remaining transfers did not have enough participants to calculate statistical significance. This pilot study had promising results, that using a culturally relevant program, Mexican parents can learn safe transfer techniques. It is important that occupational therapists continue to educate caregivers in how to safely perform a transfer and use multiple methods including verbal instruction, demonstration and practice of real transfers, as well as take into account different cultures and adapt training to be more culturally relevant. Future research is important and could look at a larger sample of participants to see if the training is effective for the other transfer types.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".