MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945180062 · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2018.0023

Occupational performance in mothers of children with cerebral palsy

2019· article· en· W2945180062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naser Havaei, mandana rezaei, Hamid Reza Rostami, Ahmad Mohammadi, Babak Kashefimehr, Mohammad Mirzaei

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicineAffect (linguistics)Typically developingSignificant differenceOccupational therapyPediatricsPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aims Caring for children with cerebral palsy may affect different domains in the caregiver's life. This study aimed to compare the occupational performance of mothers of a child who has cerebral palsy with mothers of a typically developing child. Methods A total of 41 mothers with a child who has cerebral palsy and 45 mothers with a typically developing child were recruited in this cross-sectional study. The age-matched mothers had only one child. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used to collect data on the occupational performance and satisfaction of mothers. Findings There was a statistically significant between-group difference in maternal occupational performance and occupational satisfaction (P<0.05), with mothers of children with cerebral palsy reporting lower scores for both. There were no relationships between demographic variables and the occupational performance and satisfaction of mothers with a child with cerebral palsy (P>0.05). The age of children with cerebral palsy had a direct positive relationship with the mothers' level of occupational satisfaction (P<0.05). Conclusion Mothers who take care of a child with cerebral palsy face significant reductions in occupational performance and satisfaction compared to mothers with a typically developing child, and therefore may need help and education in performing and organising their daily activities and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207