Is Waiting for Rehabilitation Services Associated with Changes in Function and Quality of Life in Children with Physical Disabilities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether longer waiting times for rehabilitation were associated with deterioration in child functional status and/or quality of life. METHODS: Parents of 124 children (mean age 45 months) with physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, global developmental delay, spina bifida) who were referred to pediatric rehabilitation centers were interviewed every three months, from referral until admission into the rehabilitation program. Information from parental interviews included socio-demographics, parental empowerment (Family Empowerment Scale), function (WeeFIM: Functional Independence Measure for Children), and quality of life (PedsQL). Data on date of referral, age, gender, and diagnosis were obtained from hospital databases. RESULTS: Half of the sample waited more than 9.1 months (95% confidence interval: 6.5-16.1) for admission to a public rehabilitation program. A total of 42% paid for some private services while waiting. Over the waiting period, there was statistically significant improvement in WeeFIM cognition and total scores but not in mobility scores. PedsQL psychosocial summary score declined over the waiting period (p< .05). CONCLUSION: Longer wait times for rehabilitation were associated with declining psychosocial quality of life. Reducing waiting times for rehabilitation services may allow rehabilitation specialists to address psychosocial problems for these children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".