A feasibility study using solution-focused coaching for health promotion in children and young people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a coaching intervention (Solution-Focused Coaching in pediatric rehabilitation [SFC-Peds]) related to physical activity and diet in males with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. METHODS: A pre-post design was employed. Participants had five coaching sessions over 8 weeks. The first session was face-to-face, followed by four virtual sessions. Feasibility criteria included recruitment rates, attrition, and intervention fidelity. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) were employed to look at outcome trends. The acceptability was assessed using a survey. RESULTS: Five males (11-19 years) participated. All feasibility criteria were met. Clinically significant increases were observed for GAS and COPM scores. Participants reported SFC-Peds to be acceptable. Broad barriers and facilitators to coaching success were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A SFC-Peds intervention for health promotion is feasible and acceptable in children with DMD and their families. A rigorous efficacy study assessing SFC-Peds intervention is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".