Parent-mediated intervention: adherence and adverse effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate parent implementation of home-based therapy regimens, and the relationship between implementation and family-level outcomes. Method: A stratified (by child age group) random sample of 538 families raising children with disabilities in Alberta, Canada took part. Participants completed the Family Life Survey, which incorporated child and family measures, and items measuring parent implementation of home-based therapy regimens. Results: Parents are more likely to implement therapeutic regimens when these are “enfolded” into other daily activities and routines. If parents have to “find a slot” in the daily routine to implement therapy, they will sacrifice personal leisure, participation in paid work, and time spent with other family members. Greater parent sacrifices/trade-offs was negatively associated with family well-being. Conclusion: As a general rule, children do well when their families do well, and families do well when they have the resources they need to juggle work and family and care demands. Recruiting parents as interventionists can tax family resources. Rehabilitation professionals must weigh up the pros and cons of parent-mediated intervention, and look to enfolding therapy into the everyday family routine.Implications for RehabilitationParents are more likely to implement prescribed therapeutic activities and exercises when these are “enfolded” into the everyday family routine.Higher levels of parental adherence and implementation of home-based therapy programs is associated with poorer family well-being.Rehabilitation professionals must weigh the pros and cons of parent-mediated intervention, and help families find ways to enfold intervention into their daily routine.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".