Frequency and determinants of formal respite service use among caregivers of children with cerebral palsy in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it