Supporting the participation of youth with physical disabilities: Parents' strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Little is known about strategies used by parents to explicitly promote the participation in meaningful occupations of transition-age youth. This descriptive study explored the type and scope of parents' strategies to facilitate the participation of youth living with a physical disability. Methods Twenty-two parents of youths (12 to 18 years) with mobility restriction reported strategies used at home, school, and in the community by completing the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth at two time points. Content analysis was conducted. Strategies were extracted and coded, and sub-categories were identified and organised into the three domains (person, occupation, environment) of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance – Engagement. Findings Overall, 241 strategies were reported, of which 130 were distinct. The strategies encompassed all three domains of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance – Engagement, with an emphasis on youths' immediate physical environment and no reference to institutional policies at the macro level. The majority of strategies focused on facilitating youths' participation in the school setting through collaboration, advocacy, and involvement. Conclusion Findings can increase our understanding of the range of actions parents take in supporting participation of transition-age youth. Occupational therapists can build on those strategies and, through family-centred practice, jointly promote youth participation and inclusion.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".