The Challenges Faced by Caregivers of Children with Impairments of Psychological Functions: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the challenges faced by caregivers of children with impairments of psychological functions (IPFs). METHOD: Data came from the 2001 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, a post-census national survey of people with disabilities residing in the 10 Canadian provinces. Interviews of caregivers of children aged 5 to 14 years with a disability (n = 3908) were conducted between September 2001 and January 2002. RESULTS: Caregivers of children with IPFs who are severely limited in their everyday activities were more likely to: need respite care; be refused a child care program or service; not receive health services for their children when needed; and not take a job, quit work, and work fewer hours to care for their children. CONCLUSIONS: This highlights the importance of both removing barriers and obstacles to the full participation of children with IPFs in everyday activities and improving their caregivers' access to health and child care services. It also argues in favour of family-centred care that explicitly considers caregivers' concerns, identifies their needs and problems, and supports families in their caregiving roles.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".