Perceptions of family‐centred services in a paediatric rehabilitation programme: strengths and complexities from multiple stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family-centred services (FCS) are best practice in paediatric rehabilitation and describe philosophies and approaches to medical care that emphasize the partnership and involvement of parents. While evidence supports FCS, there are complexities to its successful implementation. This mixed-methods study aimed to measure the extent to which parents and the healthcare provider (HCP) perceive service provision as being family centred, and to describe barriers and facilitators to the delivery of FCS. METHODS: Parents of children participating in a rehabilitation programme and HCPs providing services participated in this study. Parents completed the measure of processes of care-20 and participated in interviews, while HCPs completed the measure of processes of care-service providers and participated in a focus group. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis revealed that parents were mostly satisfied with features of FCS, which included communication and support between parents and HCPs, respect of diversity and parental collaboration and participation. Parents identified communication methods and psychosocial needs as areas that facilitated but sometimes detracted from FCS. Institutional barriers led to the identification of areas for improvement identified by multiple stakeholders. HCPs identified more areas for improvement than parents. CONCLUSION: When considering these barriers, it is evident that implementation is a complex process, impacted by institutional barriers. FCS needs to be investigated further, and systemic interventions should be used to facilitate its implementation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".