Rehabilitation service utilization in children and youth with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the pattern of use of rehabilitation services in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP), and to identify factors associated with use. METHODS: In this study, parents of 91 school-age children and 167 adolescents with CP completed a questionnaire regarding educational and rehabilitation resources received within the last 6 months. Rehabilitation services included occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT), speech language pathology (SLP), psychology and special education. Demographic characteristics were documented and developmental and functional status was assessed. Relationships between service utilization and sociodemographic factors, functioning and school setting were determined. RESULTS: Over half of children (53.2%) and adolescents (57.5%) were in regular schools; however, 41% of these required special education resources. The remainder (42.5-46.8%) was in special schools. The majority of children (84.6%) were receiving at least one rehabilitation service although this decreased (68.1%) in adolescence. PT and OT were most common and services were provided predominantly in the school setting. Services were primarily weekly direct interventions at school age, with weekly interventions or consultations most common for adolescents. Younger age was associated with service receipt at school age only. Children with greater motor limitations, lower IQ and greater activity limitations were more likely to receive OT, PT, SLP or special education. Children in segregated schools were significantly more likely to receive rehabilitation services, when compared with children in regular schools. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of children and youth received one or more services. Individuals with greater motor or cognitive challenges were more likely to receive a range of school-based services from rehabilitation specialists. When compared with children of school age, adolescents were less likely to receive services and when provided, services were more likely to be consultative. Services may need to be more optimally organized through childhood to enhance benefits to children with CP across activity limitation profiles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".