A grounded theory of parents’ attendance, participation and engagement in children’s developmental rehabilitation services: Part 2. The journey to child health and happiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Parents’ attendance, participation and engagement are thought to be critical components of children’s rehabilitation services; however, these elements of therapy are typically under-investigated. The purpose of this study was to develop a substantive theory of parents’ attendance, participation and engagement in children’s rehabilitation services.Methods: A constructivist grounded theory study was conducted. Data collection included interviews with parents (n = 20) and clinicians (n = 4), policies regarding discharge, and child-health records. Data was analyzed using constant comparison, coding and memoing. To promote credibility, authors engaged in reflexivity, peer debriefing, member checking, triangulation and recorded an audit trail.Results and conclusions: The Phoenix Theory of Attendance, Participation and Engagement was developed. This theory is described metaphorically as a journey to child health and happiness that has six components including: parent’s feelings, skills, knowledge, logistics, values and beliefs and parent’s relationship with the professional. The child, parent, service provider, and organizational factors that impact engagement are described. Service providers, policy makers, organizational leaders and researchers can use this information to promote engagement in children’s developmental 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".