Increasing the Use of Group Interventions in a Pediatric Rehabilitation Program: Perceptions of Administrators, Therapists, and Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore perceptions related to increased utilization of group interventions as a part of the service reorganization within a pediatric rehabilitation program. METHODS: Individual interviews with program administrators (n = 13) and focus groups with therapists (n = 19) and parents of children with disabilities (n = 5) were conducted. Data were analyzed using a coding grid inspired by the organized action systems theory. RESULTS: Administrators and therapists identified several issues including the need to improve the referral process for groups and the coordination across services. Groups considerably modified practice and required substantial efforts from therapists. Administrators felt groups contributed to increased service accessibility. Although therapists had some doubts about service quality in groups, especially in regard to the reduced attention to individual needs, they reported positive benefits on children's social participation. Generally, parents were satisfied with group interventions. CONCLUSION: Groups appear to be a promising method of service delivery, but organizational-related issues should be considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".