Factors affecting family‐centred service delivery for children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The provision of family-centred services (FCS) emphasizes a partnership between parents and service providers so that families are involved in every aspect of services for their child. There is evidence that providing FCS is associated with improvements in parents' satisfaction with services, decreased parental stress, and positive child outcomes. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to examine factors that are most important in determining parent perceptions of the family centredness of care and parent satisfaction with service. A cross-sectional survey was completed by 494 parents, 324 service providers, and 15 CEOs from 16 organizations delivering children's rehabilitation services. Analyses were completed using a structural equation modelling approach. RESULTS: Survey return rates ranged from 77 to 94%. Findings indicate that the principal determinants of parent satisfaction with services are the family-centred culture at the organization and parent perceptions of FCS. Parent satisfaction with services was also influenced by the number of places where services were received and the number of health and development problems experienced by their child. CONCLUSION: Parent satisfaction with services is strongly influenced by the perception that services are more family centred, fewer places where services were received and fewer health and development problems for their child. Ways in which organizations can improve satisfaction through carrying out family-centred behaviours are discussed.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".