MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608173599 · doi:10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.922

0923 PROVIDING THE BEST BEDROOM ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILDREN WITH CEREBRAL PALSY

2017· article· en· W2608173599 on OpenAlexaffabout
R Dutt, CA Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedtimeActigraphyBedroomCerebral palsyPsychological interventionSleep (system call)Intervention (counseling)BathingSleep hygienePsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognitionInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 23–46% of children with cerebral palsy have sleep problems. Often these sleep problems go undiagnosed and undertreated. Interventions, if offered, are most often pharmacological. However, medication side effects are a significant concern and there is a clear need to build the evidence-base for non-pharmacological sleep interventions for these children. A recent review of the evidence-base for environmental modifications to promote sleep showed promising results warranting further study. The study aims were to determine 1) if providing parents with manualized sleep education and problem solving strategies focused on the environment increased parental knowledge, and 2) if increased knowledge then translated into parental actions to decrease sleep negative features in the bedroom. This pilot study recruited child/parent participants through community agencies. Baseline and 6 week follow-up data collection included the Parental Sleep Environment Knowledge Questionnaire (PSEKQ), Parental Interactive Bedtime Behavior Scale, Child Sleep Habit Questionnaire, Parent Knowledge of Healthy Sleep and sleep actigraphy. Parents received the Children’s Best Bedroom for Sleep (CBBES) manual (including sleep science information, self-assessment tool and environmental modification recommendation) as the intervention. There were 6 parent/child participants. The PSEKQ improved slightly (66.66% at baseline to 78.33% at follow-up). Comparing baseline and post-intervention BEAC results demonstrated that parents’ ability to assess their child’s bedroom and act to modify environmental problems that interfered with sleep had improved. Actigraphy data was inconclusive and as expected, because the intervention focused on the environment, there was no change in parent bedtime beliefs and behavioural measures. Results support providing parents with a sleep environment psycho-education manual to build knowledge and skills for addressing environmental components of their child’s sleep problems. This research is ongoing and future studies will test the CBBES with parents of children with a range of health conditions. The Canadian Centre for Disability Studies

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207