A Collaborative Approach to Decision Making Through Developmental Monitoring to Provide Individualized Services for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Perspective, we suggest a process to improve physical and occupational therapists’ and families’ collaboration to provide appropriate, efficient, and effective evidence-based services to improve motor function, self-care performance, and participation in family and recreation activities for children with cerebral palsy (CP). This process is informed by 2 multisite prospective cohort studies (Move & PLAY and On Track). The heterogeneity of children with CP is described, limiting the utility of evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to inform service planning for children with CP. An evidence-based alternative using prospective cohort studies that produce knowledge of determinants of outcomes important to children and families and methods for developmental monitoring using longitudinal developmental and reference percentile curves to inform individualized care is suggested. Guiding questions are provided to explore how knowledge of determinants and developmental monitoring can inform family-centered, collaborative, strengths-based, and focused service programs to support early development and function. Although this perspective paper is focused on children with CP, the research approach described for collection of useful information and the clinical method of data use may be helpful for people with other heterogeneous chronic health conditions in which physical and occupational therapists face similar challenges.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".