Comparing the priorities of parents and young people with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adolescence is a period of change and transition that may pose unique challenges for young people with cerebral palsy (CP). We compared statements of priorities, i.e. what adolescents (13-17) and youth (18-21) and their parents would like to be able to do to enable greater activity and participation. METHODS: Participants were 198 parents and 135 young people with CP (45% males) from seven Children's Hospitals in the United States. The interviews were structured using The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Priority statements were categorised as Adult Tasks, Biology, Self-Identity or Physical Activity. RESULTS: All parents identified more priorities for Biology and Adult Tasks (p < 0.001). Adolescents identified the fewest priorities for Self-Identity (p < 0.01). Youth identified, in descending order of frequency, priorities in Adult Tasks, Biology, Self-Identity and Physical Activity (p < 0.05). In the parent-young people dyads when disagreements occurred, Self-Identity issues were identified more often by parents (p < 0.05) and priorities for Physical Activity were identified more often by young people (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The shared and differing priorities of parents and young people with CP may reflect different roles, perceptions and experiences. The findings have implications for healthcare professionals, providing a framework to compare and contrast the priorities of young people and their parents.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".