MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An exploratory study of parents' approaches to health promotion in families of adolescents with physical disabilities

2007· article· en· W2148365405 on OpenAlexaff
Beverley J. Antle, Whitney L. Mills, Catherine Steele, Ilze Kalnins, Beth Ellen Rossen

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySpina bifidaHealth promotionContext (archaeology)Health careMedicineDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyNursingPublic healthPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207