System Integration and Its Influence on the Quality of Life of Children with Complex Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To explore the interactions between child and parents psychosocial factors and team integration variables that may explain improvements in physical dimensions of the PEDS QL quality of life of children with complex needs after 2 years. Methods. In this 2-year study, parents were identified by the Children's Treatment Network. Families were eligible if the child was aged 0-19 years, had physical limitations, resided in either Simcoe County or the Region of York, Ontario, and there were multiple other family needs. Regression analysis used to explore associations and interactions; n = 110. Results. A child's physical quality of life was affected by interacting factors including child's behavior, parenting, and integrated care. Statistically significant interactions between team integration, processes of care, and child/parent variables highlight the complexity of the rehabilitation approach in real-life situations. Conclusions. Rehabilitation providers working with children with complex needs and their families should also address child and parent problematic behaviors. When this was the case in high integrated teams, the child's physical quality of life improved after two years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".