Frequency and determinants of formal respite service use among caregivers of children with cerebral palsy in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of formal respite services among caregivers of children with cerebral palsy in Ontario and discuss the factors that may contribute to respite use and non-use. METHODS: A total of 468 caregivers were interviewed about their experience with formal respite services. Interviews were part of a larger cross-sectional study on caregiver health. Caregivers were asked about their knowledge of formal respite services; their use of formal respite services in the past year; financial implications relating to formal respite use; perceived barriers to formal respite service use; and reasons for not using formal respite services (if applicable). RESULTS: Nearly half (46%) of caregivers in the sample reported using respite services in the past year. Most of the caregivers who used respite services used more than one source of respite, had services provided in their home, often for less than 1 day, and reported using them more than six times. The most commonly cited reason for using formal respite services was for a planned break. Many factors influenced caregivers' use of formal respite services. Caregivers who had a child with a lower level of function, with multiple additional conditions, or who was male, were more likely to use formal respite services. Although over 90% of caregivers indicated that respite use is beneficial for both their family and child, over 60% reported facing many barriers while attempting to access respite services. CONCLUSION: Results from this cross-sectional study indicate that caregivers who used respite services used them frequently for breaks from caregiving. Caregivers described facing many barriers while attempting to access respite services therefore to improve caregiver's experience with respite services, strategies are suggested.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".