Perceived risks and benefits of hippotherapy among parents of children currently engaged in or waiting for hippotherapy: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Explore the perceived risks and benefits of hippotherapy among parents of children currently engaged in or waiting rehabilitation using hippotherapy. METHOD: Phenomenological qualitative exploratory pilot study. An interview guide validated by experts was used to conduct the interviews. Summaries were written to capture first impressions. One team member coded the transcripts and the coding was validated by the research team through discussion until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The average age of the participants (n = 4) was 37.3 ± 6.6 years. The few risks they perceived related to physical injuries. Lack of knowledge of contraindications, lack of fear, minimization of risks, and risk-attenuation factors also emerged as important themes. Benefits accounted for a large part of the content of the interviews and were grouped under 13 themes, including motor and postural control, enjoyment and the development of a special relationship. CONCLUSION: Minimization of the perceived risks compared to the numerous perceived benefits could create clinical issues such as the client putting self at risk of injuries (e.g., bites, falls, and kicks) if not cautious enough or complications insufficiently prevented, which suggests the need to develop educational activities for an informed consent to this type of rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".