Waiting time for rehabilitation services for children with physical disabilities
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
BACKGROUND: Early rehabilitation may minimize disability and complications. However, children often wait a long time to gain admission to rehabilitation centres. OBJECTIVES: To describe waiting times for paediatric physical and occupational therapy and to determine factors associated with these waiting times. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study was a prospective cohort design. Patients were followed from 1 January 1999 to 1 March 2000. SUBJECTS: All children with physical disabilities, aged 0-18 years, referred in 1999 from the Montreal Children's Hospital to paediatric rehabilitation centres. MEASURES: Data on date of referral, date of first appointment at the rehabilitation centre, age, gender, diagnosis, region and language were obtained from the rehabilitation transfer database. Primary family caregivers of children who were transferred to a rehabilitation facility participated in a telephone interview regarding their perceptions of the transfer process. RESULTS: There were 172 children referred to rehabilitation facilities. The mean age of the children was 2.5 years. Average waiting time was 157.4 days (SD 57.1) for occupational therapy and 129.4 days (SD 51.6) for physical therapy. Decreased waiting time was associated with living in the city as opposed to the suburbs (hazard ratio=1.77; 95% confidence interval=0.92-3.41) and inversely associated with age (hazard ratio=0.46; 95% confidence interval=0.34-0.62). Among the 41 primary family caregivers who participated in the survey, higher empowerment scores were associated with shorter waits for rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Waiting time for rehabilitation services needs to be reduced. Empowered parents appear to manoeuvre within the system to reduce waiting times for their 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.
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