Using caregivers’ perceptions of rehabilitation services for children with Cerebral Palsy at public sector hospitals to identify the components of an appropriate service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a growing body of evidence favouring a family-centred approach to rehabilitation services for children with cerebral palsy (cp), the essential components for a quality service for children with disabilities and their families living in poorly-resourced South African (SA) settings remains unknown. The study aimed to identify key components of an appropriate rehabilitation service which would meet the needs of children with CP and their caregivers at SA public sector hospitals. This cross-sectional descriptive study used the modified Measure of processes of care (Mpoc-20) questionnaire together with two open-endedquestions with a convenience sample of caregivers attending therapy at CP Clinics in gauteng and limpopo hospitals. A total of 263 caregivers attending cerebral palsy clinics at 31 public sector hospitals in gauteng and limpopo were interviewed. Kind and caring attitudes, exercises or “training” for the child, and practical assistance (handling ideas and suggestions, assistive devices, food supplements, nappies, advice) were components of care most valued. The most frustration was caused by long queues waiting for files or at the pharmacy and being treated disrespectfully whilst providing caregivers with information and explanations regarding treatment choice were services that could be improved. Key components for an appropriate therapy service include caring and respectful attitudes, hands-on therapy, handling suggestions and practical assistance. Logistical and administrative procedures together with disrespectul and unhelpful attitudes negatively impact rehabilitation service delivery.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".