Development of a measure of family‐centred care for resource‐poor South African settings: the experience of using a modified version of the MPOC‐20
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC) is a widely used tool to assess parents' self-reported experiences of family-centred behaviours of paediatric rehabilitation services. It has never been used in resource-constrained settings or in a cross-cultural environment where cultural and language differences may complicate effective implementation of family-centred services. In this study, the MPOC-20 was used as the starting point for the development of a measure of family-centred care in disadvantaged South African settings. The objective was to establish to what extent the MPOC-20 needed to be adapted for these settings. METHODS: After modifying MPOC-20 through focus groups, the adapted scale was translated into six local languages. Trained interviewers administered the scale to a convenience sample of 267 caregivers of children aged between 1 and 18 years with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy living in poorly resourced areas in two provinces in South Africa. RESULTS: The modified MPOC-20 was neither reliable nor valid in the new setting. Cronbach's alpha for each of the sub-scales varied between 0.30 and 0.66 while for the test-retest reliability, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were between 0.51 and 0.61. The first two criteria for item convergent validity were not met. Repeated multi-trait scaling identified eight items that when combined into a scale [named the MPOC-8(SA)] had acceptable reliability and validity. Factor analysis of the MPOC-8(SA) yielded two factors: an interpersonal factor and an informational factor. CONCLUSIONS: Although extreme caution has to be used when using measures created in one socio-cultural setting in a different context, the MPOC-20 provides a useful starting point for the development of a measure of family-centred care in a poor resourced setting. Caregivers in different settings have more in common than they have differences. However, the process of asking the questions and the words used to capture caregivers' experiences needs to be different.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".