Family Priorities for Activity and Participation of Children and Youth With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding family priorities for children and youth with cerebral palsy is essential for family-centered service. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to identify family priorities for activity and participation in children and youth with cerebral palsy and (2) to determine differences based on age and Gross Motor Functional Classification System (GMFCS) level. DESIGN: Five hundred eighty-five children and youth with cerebral palsy and their caregivers participated at regional children's hospitals. The children and youth were 2 to 21 years of age; 56% were male, and 44% were female. Their caregivers, predominantly mothers (80%), had a mean age of 40.3 years (SD=9.3). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was administered to caregivers to identify their priorities for their children. The priorities were coded into 3 categories (daily activities, productivity, and leisure) and 13 subcategories. The GMFCS levels were determined by assessors who met the criterion for reliability. Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis one-way analyses of variance were used to examine differences in priorities. RESULTS: Parents of children in all age groups and GMFCS levels II to V identified more priorities for daily activities. Parents of school-aged children and youth had more priorities for productivity than parents of younger children. For parents of children in all age groups and motor function levels, self-care was the most frequent priority subcategory. Sixty-one percent of parents identified at least one priority related to mobility. LIMITATIONS: The study did not include qualitative analysis of priorities of parents. CONCLUSIONS: Parents' priorities for their children and youth with cerebral palsy differed depending on age and gross motor function level; however, the most frequent priority for all age groups was daily activities. Interviews with families are recommended for identifying outcomes for activity and participation and developing an intervention plan.
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".