Family‐centred health care for children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify characteristics of young children with cerebral palsy (CP), and intrinsic and extrinsic factors, that may be associated with parental perceptions regarding family-centred health care services. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional study, drawing our sample from the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry (CCPR). Parents rated the extent of family-centred care provided by their child's health care teams using the 56-item Measures of Process of Care (MPOC) questionnaire. Environmental and CP phenotypic variables were extracted from the CCPR for group comparisons. Low and high MPOC-56 raters were also compared. RESULTS: Valid responses were obtained from 282 families (90%). All MPOC-56 subscales were highly rated (median ≥6.0), indicating satisfaction with health care services, with the exception of the Providing General Information subscale (median 4.8, interquartile range 3.2-6.0). Parents from Nova Scotia rated all subscales significantly higher than parents from other regions. CP subtype and severity were not significantly associated with MPOC-56 subscale scores. Higher socio-economic status was associated with lower MPOC-56 subscale scores. Higher paternal educational attainment and household income were significantly associated with lower scores on the Providing General Information and Providing Specific Information about the Child subscales respectively. INTERPRETATION: Participants affirmed the provision of family-centred services from Canadian pediatric rehabilitation centres. Sociodemographic factors were associated with parental perceptions of family-centred services. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Sociodemographic factors were associated with parental perceptions of family-centred care. Factors intrinsic to the child's cerebral palsy were not associated with parental perceptions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".