Comparing Service Delivery Models for Children with Developmental Delays in Canada: Adaptive and Maladaptive Behaviours, Parental Perceptions of Stress and of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares two service delivery models (community-based and centre-based), examining them in light of children’s adaptive and maladaptive behaviours, and parental perceptions of stress and of care. More specifically, parents of 96 children with developmental delays assessed their children’s adaptive and maladaptive behaviours and rated their own perceived levels of stress as well as their perceptions of care from service providers. Findings indicated that children from the community-based sites were perceived as having less severe social skill deficits than those from centre-based sites. Regarding parental stress, mothers from community-based settings reported more challenges with their child’s father than did the mothers from centre-based settings; and fathers from the community-based settings reported more challenges related to their health than did the fathers from the centre-based settings. Regarding care, parents from the centre-based settings had more positive perceptions of care than did parents from the community-based settings. Therefore, in general, parents receiving services within community-based settings reported fewer positive perceptions of care and more challenges than those from centre-based settings. Overall, the results of this investigation can inform future programming for community- and centre-based service delivery systems. More specifically, the findings highlight the important role that family-centred care can play in supporting the needs of children with developmental delays and their families; particularly for families using community-based services.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".