Educational and rehabilitation service utilization in adolescents born preterm or with a congenital heart defect and at high risk for disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim This historical cohort study describes the use of educational and rehabilitation services in adolescents born preterm or with a congenital heart defect (CHD). Method Parents of 76 young people (mean age 15y 8mo [SD 1y 8mo]) with CHD and 125 born ≤29 weeks gestational age (mean age 16y [SD 2y 5mo]) completed a demographics questionnaire including educational and rehabilitation resource utilization within the previous 6 months. Rehabilitation services included occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech language pathology, psychology. Developmental (Leiter Brief IQ, Movement‐ABC, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) and functional (Vineland) status of the young people was assessed. Pearson χ2 tests were used to perform simple pairwise comparisons of categorical outcomes across the two groups (CHD, preterm). Univariate logistic regression was used to examine predictors of service utilization. Results Developmental profiles of the two groups (CHD/preterm) were similar (29.9%/30% IQ<80; 43.5%/50.0% motor difficulties; 23.7%/22.9% behavior problems). One‐third received educational supports or attended segregated schools. Only 16% (preterm) and 26.7% (CHD) were receiving rehabilitation services. Services were provided predominantly in the school setting, typically weekly. Few received occupational therapy or physical therapy (1.3–7.6%) despite functional limitations. Leiter Brief IQ<70 was associated with receiving educational supports (CHD: OR 5.53, 95% CI 1.29–23.68; preterm: OR 14.63, 3.10–69.08) and rehabilitation services (CHD: OR 4.46, 1.06–18.88; preterm: OR 5.11, 1.41–18.49). Young people with motor deficits were more likely to require educational (CHD: OR 5.72, 1.99–16.42; preterm: OR 3.11, 1.43–6.77) and rehabilitation services (preterm: OR 3.97, 1.21–13.03). Interpretation Although young people with impairments were more likely to receive educational and rehabilitation services, many may not be adequately supported, particularly by rehabilitation specialists. Rehabilitation services at this important transition phase could be beneficial in optimizing adaptive functioning in the home, school, and community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".