Parents' perspectives on occupational therapy and physical therapy goals for children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Contemporary rehabilitation literature emphasises functional goals for children with disabilities and use of a collaborative goal-setting process grounded in principles of family centred service delivery. PURPOSE: To explore parents' experiences with goals and goal setting. METHOD: We conducted a qualitative study with 11 focus groups and two individual interviews with 39 parents of children with cerebral palsy living in western Canada. We used an inductive, thematic analysis to identify prominent themes. RESULTS: The analysis revealed five themes representing goals that were meaningful to parents and provided insight into parents' experiences with goal-setting processes in occupational and physical therapy: (1) movement as the means to functional success; (2) physical health and fitness are important therapy goals; (3) the importance of leading happy, fulfilling lives and being accepted by others; (4) 'We can't do it all': balancing therapy with the demands of everyday life; and (5) shifting roles and responsibilities in goal setting. CONCLUSIONS: The variability noted both in parents' desired role in goal setting and in goals important to parents highlights the importance of establishing trusting relationships with families so that family goals, values, individual circumstances, and desired level of participation in goal setting can be openly discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".