Needs of families of children with cerebral palsy in Bangladesh: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Families of children with disabilities often have needs related to the care of their child with a disability. Although there has been extensive exploration of family needs in high-income contexts, there is little known about this issue in low and middle-income countries like Bangladesh. In this study, we explored the needs of families of children with cerebral palsy in Bangladesh. Such understanding is important as it will help to improve services for children with disabilities and their families. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach and interviewed 20 family members of children with cerebral palsy who visited the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed, Bangladesh. We thematically analyzed data from semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Five different themes were found on needs of families with children with disabilities: (a) financial needs, (b) needs for disability-related services, (c) needs for family and community cohesion, (d) informational needs, and (e) emotional needs. Participants overwhelmingly reported that financial needs were their highest priority. CONCLUSION: Needs of families of children with disabilities must be considered in rehabilitation services to improve children's outcomes. Further studies are required to explore needs of families of children with disabilities who do not have access to rehabilitation services.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".