Getting the run around: accessing services for children with developmental co‐ordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accessing services for children with developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) is frequently difficult for parents who have to navigate both health and education systems to find a diagnosis and appropriate interventions. METHOD: A qualitative study design incorporating a phenomenological perspective was utilized to understand the nature of the experiences of these parents in attempting to access support for their children with DCD. Twelve parents, whose children attended the Kids Skills Clinic at the University of Western Ontario and were identified as having DCD, were interviewed by the second author. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using constant comparative method. Member checking, peer checking and code-recoding were carried out to enhance rigour in data analysis. RESULTS: A number of themes emerged focusing on the common problems experienced leading to occupational therapy referral. Parents' journeys to seek and access services for their children with DCD were characterized by a sense of maternal knowing, experience of frustration, trivialization of the problem, a sense of 'going it alone', and 'getting the run around'. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for health and educational professionals working with children, in terms of recognition of DCD and referral for services, are described.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".