Current Rehabilitation Practices for Children with Cerebral Palsy: Focus and Gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe the focus of therapy practices in occupational and physical therapy for school-aged children with cerebral palsy, and better understand whether it is congruent with recommended practices. METHODS: A Canada-wide Web-based survey was completed by 62 occupational and 61 physical therapists to identify problems, assessments, and treatment interventions for two case-based scenarios. Data were coded using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definitions for "body functions and structure," "activity and participation," and "environment." RESULTS: Physical therapists, in comparison to occupational therapists, were more likely to select interventions classed in the "body functions and structure" category (34-42% and 18-20%, respectively). Both professions focused on "activity and participation" (34-61%) when identifying problems, assessing, and intervening; attention, however, was mainly directed towards task-oriented activities such as activities of daily living and mobility. Participation in leisure or community-based activities received less attention (2-15%). The environment received limited attention for problems and assessments (4-25%), though it was an important focus of intervention (19-37%). CONCLUSIONS: While body functions and structure are well-addressed, other ICF elements, specifically participation, are poorly integrated into practice. The emerging focus on the environment in therapy intervention, by modifying the context rather than changing aspects of the child, is consistent with current approaches and evidence. Knowledge translation implementation initiatives are recommended to bridge identified gaps.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".