A Service Delivery Model for Children with DCD Based on Principles of Best Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In this perspective article, we propose the Apollo model as an example of an innovative interdisciplinary, community-based service delivery model for children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) characterized by the use of graduated levels of intensity and evidence-based interventions that focus on function and participation. METHODS: We describe the context that led to the creation of the Apollo model, describe the approach to service delivery and the services offered. RESULTS: The Apollo model has 5 components: first contact, service delivery coordination, community-, group-, and individual-interventions. This model guided the development of a streamlined set of services offered to children with DCD, including early-intake to share educational information with families, community interventions, inter-disciplinary and occupational therapy groups, and individual interventions. Following implementation of the Apollo model, wait-times decreased and the number of children receiving services increased, without compromising service quality. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned are shared to facilitate development of other practice models to support children with DCD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".