Child and parent perspectives of life quality of children with physical impairments compared with non-disabled peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life quality has become a widely used concept within rehabilitation and occupational therapy practice. AIM: This study explored child and parent perspectives of life quality of children with physical impairments compared with a group of non-disabled children. METHOD: Data were collected with the Icelandic self- and proxy-reported versions of the KIDSCREEN-27. For children with physical impairments, reports from 34 children and 40 parents were included in the analyses, and in control group reports from 429 children and 450 parents were included. RESULTS: Children with physical impairments evaluated their life quality within the average range on four out of five life quality dimensions. The lowest scores were within the physical well-being dimension. Self-reported scores of children with physical impairments were higher than those of their parents on all dimensions except autonomy and parent relations. Thus, the parents considered more environmental and personal factors to negatively influence their child's life quality than children did themselves. CONCLUSION: Children with physical impairments experience their life quality similarly to non-disabled children. SIGNIFICANCE: Focus on life quality can help occupational therapists to identify what circumstances positively or negatively influence client well-being and to focus more on contextual factors that contribute to disablement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".