An exploratory study of parents' approaches to health promotion in families of adolescents with physical disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The life expectancy of children with physical disabilities now extends into adulthood and has been accompanied by the transfer of rehabilitation services from institutions to the home. Thus, families must increasingly partner with health service providers to promote their child's health and prevent the development of secondary conditions that may contribute to heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, low endurance and emotional difficulties. AIM: To investigate within a family context the health promotion efforts of parents on behalf of a child with a physical disability. METHOD: The Long Interview Method was used to interview 15 families (11 two-parent and 4 single-parent) having a child 11-16 years of age with a physical disability including cerebral palsy (7), spina bifida (3), muscular dystrophy (3) and other conditions (2). RESULTS: Parents' health promotion efforts were characterized by three main themes. First, parents emphasized traditional lifestyle health behaviours including nutrition, physical activity, tobacco, alcohol and drug use, and personal hygiene. Second, parents tried to foster their adolescent's social life and friendships. They expressed particular concern about how, and if, their child would develop a sense of purpose and have a productive future. Third, parents invested a great deal of effort into observing daily routines, making arrangements for their child's social inclusion and supporting their child in a way that balanced independence with safety and energy conservation. CONCLUSIONS: Parents recognize that their child with a physical disability faces greater obstacles, and work hard at health promotion. Healthcare workers need to work with parents to: (1) provide information about specific lifestyle health behaviours including nutrition, physical activity and sexuality; (2) advocate for resources to foster social inclusion; and (3) discuss family strategies that balance parental involvement with their child's need for independence and energy conservation for daily activities.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it