Complementary and alternative health care use in young children with physical disabilities waiting for rehabilitation services in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We wished to determine the frequency of complementary and alternative health care (CAHC) use in preschool aged children with physical disabilities (PD) waiting for public rehabilitation services in the province of Quebec (Canada), to evaluate its effectiveness from the parents' perspective and to explore factors associated with its utilisation. METHOD: Children with PD referred to rehabilitation centres from two Montreal hospitals were recruited. We evaluated the use of CAHC and its effectiveness from the parents' perspective in a cross-sectional manner, using descriptive statistics. We explored factors associated with utilisation, using logistic regression models. RESULTS: In this group of children with PD (n = 206, mean age: 2.6 years), 31 (15%) used CAHC and 15 (48.4%) of those tried more than one type. CAHC was considered at least moderately beneficial by parents in 53% of the cases. The use of CAHC was higher among children with low health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and children whose mothers were more educated and considered themselves as Canadian (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of CAHC by young children with PD was low, use of CAHC was higher among children with lower HRQOL and whose mothers were highly educated and Canadian. CAHC use should be evaluated by health providers to better educate parents of children with PD, which may help them to make the best decisions regarding their child's treatment while waiting for rehabilitation services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".