MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151460867 · doi:10.1080/09638280902822286

Perceptions of family participation among parents of children with cerebral palsy followed from infancy to toddler hood

2009· article· en· W2151460867 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid Rentinck, Jan Willem Gorter, Marjolijn Ketelaar, Eline Lindeman, Marian J. Jongmans

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToddlerCerebral palsyFeelingPerceptionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyFamily lifeMedicinePediatricsSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the way parents of children with cerebral palsy (CP) perceive their involvement in family and personal life situations, also called 'family participation'. PURPOSE: To investigate the perception of family participation among parents of preschool children with CP. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were used to describe how parents (n=53) of children with CP (aged 18 months) perceive participation with respect to family activities and their personal activities. In addition, using a combined score of family and personal activities, we investigated the changes of parental (n=36) perceived family participation over time (followed from 18 months onwards until 42 months of age). RESULTS: At the child's age of 18 months, a substantial percentage of parents expressed a feeling of being restricted in their family activities (45%) or personal activities (53%). The longitudinal data show that over the 24-month follow-up significant more parents perceived to be restricted in family participation (p = 0.008; Cochran's Q test). CONCLUSIONS: A child with CP in a family may lead to parents perceiving restrictions in family participation. These restrictions arise early in the life of a child with CP and may become more prominent as the child grows older.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207