Development of an inventory of goals using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in a population of non-ambulatory children and adolescents with cerebral palsy treated with botulinum toxin A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the management of hypertonicity in children with cerebral palsy (CP), goals should be clearly identified in order to evaluate the effectiveness of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) treatment, specifically in non-ambulatory children and adolescents, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), level IV or V. A retrospective chart review (Mesterman et al., 2013) identified the need for the development of a set of specific and meaningful goals linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for future goal setting and evaluation in this population. Our objective is to create an inventory of goals based on the ICF framework that captures the needs and values of families with children with CP. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study recruited parents of twenty children and youths with CP in GMFCS levels IV or V (mean age 11.2 years, SD 4.3, 13 males) who were assessed for BoNT-A treatment at the Spasticity Management Clinic at McMaster Children's Hospital (Hamilton, ON). A previous inventory of goals was developed by a group of experts at a national botulinum toxin conference held in January 2014 (Montreal, Canada). The inventory of goals was further refined by asking the parents to select goals from the inventory list that they would like their child to accomplish after receiving BoNT-A treatment, and asking healthcare professionals for clarity and phrasing of goals in the inventory list. RESULTS: All parents identified body structure and function goals, with more than 75% of parents selecting reduction in muscle tone and increased range of movements in the upper and lower extremities. More than 50% of parents identified activity goals related to ease of caregiving. Two activity goals and three participation goals were missing from the inventory. Participation goals were identified by less than 5% of parents. CONCLUSION: The inventory may be a helpful tool to facilitate a discussion about goal setting between healthcare professionals and families in the context of BoNT-A treatment. A future study is needed to conduct qualitative interviews to better understand the information that families may require about setting goals during BoNT-A treatment and to evaluate the usefulness of the inventory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".