Assessment of family needs in children with physical disabilities: development of a family needs inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Valid tools to assess family needs for children with physical disabilities are needed to help tune paediatric rehabilitation care processes to individual needs of these families. To create such a family needs inventory, needs of families of children with a physical disability (age 0-18 years) were identified. We examined differences in the number and type of needs listed by families when asked for by means of an interview compared with using an inventory. METHODS: Forty-nine families of children with a wide variety of physical disabilities (mean age 7.7 years; SD 4.6) participated in semi-structured interviews, focusing on family needs. They also checked an inventory of 99 items (based on a previously conducted literature review), regarding their family needs. In addition, individual interviews with healthcare professionals, and panel meetings with healthcare professionals and parents were held to further identify relevant family needs for the inventory. RESULTS: The individual parent and healthcare professional interviews raised 41 needs that were not included in the original inventory of 99 items. Moreover, the panel meetings raised a further 49 needs. After restructuring and reformulating several items, a 187-item Family Needs Inventory - Paediatric Rehabilitation (FNI-PR) was created. The parent interviews revealed significantly less family needs (mean number of needs = 10.8; SD = 6.0) compared with using the inventory (mean number of needs = 31.7; SD = 19.7) (P < 0.0001). Most expressed family needs were related to both general and specific information concerning the child's development and treatment, aids and information about legislation and to rules relating to compensation of costs. CONCLUSION: Based on responses of parents and healthcare professionals the FNI-PR has been developed, a comprehensive inventory for family needs that can be used in paediatric rehabilitation. An inventory checked by parents resulted in more family needs than a single open-ended question. The inventory may facilitate the implementation of family-centred care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".