Knowledge to Practice in Developmental Coordination Disorder: Utility of an Evidence-Based Online Module for Physical Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a chronic condition with potential negative health consequences. Therapists working with children with DCD need access to tailored, synthesized, evidence-based information; however a knowledge-to-practice gap exists. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the utility of an evidence-based online DCD module tailored to physical therapists' (PTs) needs. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, we interviewed PTs working with children with DCD (n = 9) to identify their information needs. Their recommendations, along with synthesized DCD research evidence, informed module development. These PTs as well as others (n = 50) evaluated the module's usefulness. RESULTS: The module incorporated important content areas including: (1) identification; (2) planning interventions and goals; (3) evidence-based practice; (4) management; and (5) resources. Case scenarios, clinical applications, interactive media, links to resources, and interactive learning opportunities were also embedded. PTs perceived the module to be comprehensive and useful and provided feedback to improve module navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Involving end-users throughout the development and evaluation of an online PT DCD module contributed to its relevance, applicability, and utility. It will be important to evaluate whether use of this module improves the quality of services provided by PTs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".