Parents' reactions to the diagnosis of cerebral palsy: associations between resolution, age and severity of disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For parents, receiving a diagnosis, typically in early childhood, that their child has cerebral palsy may conjure up high distress and anxiety. Resolution of these initial reactions may help parents to focus on the challenges and needs of their children. AIMS: of the study were to test whether parents of older children displayed resolution more often than parents of younger children, and whether parents of children with less severe cerebral palsy also showed more resolution. METHOD: Resolution of reactions to diagnosis was assessed with the Reaction to Diagnosis Interview, in a clinic-based sample of 255 parents of children with cerebral palsy aged between 1.4 and 17.3 years. Physicians rated motor ability using the Gross Motor Function Classification System. RESULTS: Overall, the responses of 81.6% of the parents were predominantly indicative of resolution. Unresolved reactions were significantly more often found among parents of younger children and parents of children with more severe motor disabilities. Among parents of teenage children, resolution was more often apparent from a focus on action to better the lives of their children, whereas in parents of younger children, it was more apparent from their focus on constructive thoughts and information seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Given time, the large majority of parents may resolve their reactions to the diagnosis that their child has cerebral palsy. Parents of the most severely affected children may need specific support which, given the age trends, might be aimed at different resolution processes for parents of younger and older children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".