80 Outcomes Evaluation of an Inter-Disciplinary Hospital-Based School Program for Elementary School Children with Tertiary Complex Learning Difficulties: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with learning problems use significant amounts of health resources, and care is complicated by its interface with the education system. There are few published outcome studies of effective treatment programs for young children with complex learning problems requiring interdisciplinary care. This pilot study examined two standardised questionnaires for assessing family-centred behaviours of health care providers: Measure of Processes of Care-20 (MPOC-20) for families, and Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers (MPOC-SP) for staff. Program-specific outcome measures were also evaluated. All children, aged 4.5 to 8 years (n=44) with complex learning difficulties were recruited on admission during the first term of an inter-disciplinary, hospital-based day school program which had been recently redesigned to increase access. Parent outcomes, including MPOC-20 and a parent program-specific questionnaire (PPSQ), were obtained 8 weeks after transition back to the community school. PPSQ addressed self-rated advocacy, knowledge of child's needs, ability to use child-specific strategies, and satisfaction with transition. Responses were rated on a 1–5 point scale (5=satisfaction, eg high level of confidence or perceived success). Staff outcomes, including MPOC-SP and staff program-specific questionnaire (SPSQ) based on a similar 5 point scale were obtained at the end of the first program year. Parent response rate for both measures was 18.2%. Mean total MPOC-20 score was 4.97±2.07SD (1–7 point scale, where 7=exemplary care). Mean PPSQ score was 4.17+/–1.21 SD with advocacy 4.13±1.15 SD, knowledge 4.06±1.48 SD, strategies 4.45±0.81 SD, and transition satisfaction 3.92±1.50 SD. Staff response on the MPOC-SP was 70.0% with a mean score of 5.34±1.43 SD. Mean staff score on the SPSQ was 3.49±0.97 SD. Both parent and staff MPOC scores indicated that the redesigned program was meeting needs for family-centred care from a “moderate” to a “fairly great” extent. Although response rate was low, parent MPOC scores were in keeping with reports in the literature (range 4–6) for children with other disabilities, suggesting that MPOC-20 may be a valid assessment tool in this population. Parent satisfaction was highest for ability to use strategies and lowest for transition process. Staff MPOC scores were similar to parent scores, although satisfaction on SPSQ was lower. Results serve as a baseline against which outcomes of future program redesign can be assessed. Further study of these measures in this patient population with a larger, more complete sample is indicated, particularly for the parent group. Follow-up over time will determine if short-term improvements are maintained.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".