Solution-Focused Coaching in Pediatric Rehabilitation: Investigating Transformative Experiences and Outcomes for Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: A qualitative study was conducted to investigate family experiences and outcomes of Solution-Focused Coaching in pediatric rehabilitation (SFC-peds). METHODS: Two interviews (5 months apart) were conducted with nine sets of family members who had received SFC-peds, within the past 6 months, from therapists with 3-10 years of experience using the approach. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and a phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Participants experienced a goal-oriented collaborative process, high engagement, enhanced capacity and community participation, and empowered mindsets. The therapy process was seen as a collaborative solution-focused conversation, situated in the client's world, and involving individualized and co-created goals and plans. SFC-peds provided families with a supportive, structured, and paced goal-setting process. Reported enhancements to capacity included child/youth skill development, enhanced parent skills, enhanced parent knowledge of their child and options, and changes in parenting. Increased community participation was also reported. Empowered mindsets involved increased confidence, increased self-efficacy and self-determination, and broadened perspectives and expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence for the utility of SFC-peds and the importance of engaging families in a goal-oriented collaborative process. Implications concern greater understanding of transactional dynamics in therapy and real-world client change, and the need to develop measures of client/family resiliency.
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 | 0.001 | 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".