Content Comparison of Health Related Quality of Life Measures for Cerebral Palsy Based on the International Classification of Functioning Children and Youth Version (Icf-Cy)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
alberta children's hospital, calgary, alberta In Canada the estimated prevalence of developmental disabilities in young children ranges between 12% and 17%.Severe developmental problems are often identified early and appropriately.However, more subtle cognitive, motor, and behavioural problems that can have significant impact on a person's life are often under-identified before school age, and the delay in service Results in children and families not benefiting from early intervention.Primary care physicians are in routine contact with young children and their families so they have a uniquely important role in early detection of children with developmental and behavioural problems.Because little is known about developmental-behavioural primary care screening practices in Canada, the objective of this pilot survey was to gather preliminary information from Calgary physicians about their practices and opinions.The broad themes of the survey were methods, tools and barriers associated with developmental screening and surveillance.Three hundred community physicians (200 family physicians and 100 pediatricians) in the Calgary Health Region received a self administered, 66 item, paper and pencil questionnaire, adapted from Sices, et al. (2003).Questions included demographic information about physicians' gender, age and years of practice.All other responses were Likert scaled.Descriptive analyses revealed trends regarding the major themes.Response rate was 24%.Responding Calgary physicians were unlikely to use published questionnaires or formal screening instruments when screening for problems.The majority of physicians were more likely to prompt parents for concerns and to use developmental milestones.However, physicians also indicated that they did not believe parents' concerns are a good substitute for formal developmental screening.Physicians identified barriers such as lack of time and adequate reimbursement and lack of intervention resources.Almost all responding physicians indicated that screening should begin early and should be repeated until three years of age.Most responding physicians had not been formally trained in early developmental-behavioural screening.Although evidence suggests that formal and standardized developmental screening is an effective way to identify children with developmental problems, common challenges persist in changing practice in primary care.Calgary physicians, like others elsewhere, continue to rely on insensitive screening methods such as developmental milestones and clinical impressions.The implications for practice are that if physicians are to take responsibility for developmental surveillance they will need formal training through professional development, or through their resident training programs, about current and valid tools for screening. do childreN With coMPleX disaBilities BeNefit froM cochlear iMPlaNtatioN?
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".