Parents’ perspectives on the quality of life of adolescents with cerebral palsy: trajectory, choices and hope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome of health interventions for children and youth with cerebral palsy (CP). When planning interventions it is fundamental to understand what constitutes a good QoL, a subjective construct, and what factors are important to consider from both parents' and children's perspectives. METHODS: We used a grounded theory methodology to explore parents' perspectives on the factors that are important for the QoL of their adolescents with CP. Fourteen parents were interviewed using a purposeful sampling strategy, followed by theoretical sampling until saturation was reached. RESULTS: Parents reflected on several important aspects of their children's QoL. In particular, they described how their trajectories as parents of a child with a disability have contributed to their adolescents' current well-being. Over time, parents' hopes for a cure were transformed into hopes for their child's happiness. This trajectory was influenced by the adolescents' intrinsic characteristics and the parents' strategies to overcome challenges and was informed by the parents' and their children's ability to make choices in pursuit of their preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' and parents' accounts should be considered when planning interventions for adolescents with disabilities. It is important to consider parents' personal characteristics, experiences and the strategies that have been proven to be efficacious in improving their children's QoL and to understand their need to make choices relating to participation and accessibility in order to promote QoL for this at-risk population. Implications for Rehabilitation Parents' trajectory on raising a child with a disability is important for understanding adolescents' QoL. Parents' characteristics and environmental factors influence adolescents' well-being. Hope and choice experiences by parents of children with CP are important for their children's QoL. Transition from pediatric to adult services are required to address disability-related aspects as well as adolescent needs for intimacy, sexuality and planning for their future during adolescence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".