The Nature, Value, and Experience of Engagement in Pediatric Rehabilitation: Perspectives of Youth, Caregivers, and Service Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To conduct a qualitative investigation of engagement in pediatric rehabilitation therapy.Methods: Interviews were conducted with 10 youth, 10 caregivers, and 10 service providers. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach.Results: Themes illustrated three perspectives: engagement as a connection with components of the therapy process, engagement as working together, and engagement as an affective and motivational process. Engagement created valued connections with therapy components and forward momentum for therapy.Conclusions: The themes supported a view of engagement as complex, transactional, and multidimensional. Participants focused on different, yet not discrepant, aspects of engagement. Youth focused on having fun and personal connection with service providers. Caregivers provided a more complex perspective encompassing both their own and their child’s engagement, with an emphasis on relationship, understanding what is taking place, and feeling valued in the process. Service providers highlighted goal attainment and the value of engagement in bringing about outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".