Family‐centred service: moving ideas into practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With parents more involved in their child's day-to-day care, concepts of family-centred service (FCS) are increasingly adopted in children's health and rehabilitation service organizations. METHODS: In this paper, we report the results of a study to develop and evaluate educational materials for parents, service providers and health sciences students about FCS. The materials focus on the nature and philosophy of FCS, and the practical skills and systemic changes required for its implementation. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants (12 families, 12 service providers and 12 rehabilitation science students) were randomly assigned to receive one of the six FCS educational packages, each containing three FCS educational sheets. Participants' ratings of the format and content, and the impact of the FCS Sheets were very high, with overall means above 5.0 on a 7-point scale. Using a mixed model analysis, we found significant differences in participants' ratings of familiarity with the materials (students were less familiar than service providers). After statistical adjustment for familiarity, there were no significant differences between the groups or the packages on ratings of format and content or impact. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the way in which the participant groups rated the impact of the FCS Sheets and the specific packages did not have an effect on the participants' ratings. The FCS educational materials, even those less familiar to participants, were rated highly on format and content, and impact. Results indicate that the material was perceived to be important to each group, and was formatted and written in a way that was easy to understand. This finding counters current recommendations in the knowledge transfer literature that suggest different versions should be written for different target groups.
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 | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".