Usability of the Participation and Environment Measure Plus (PEM+) for Client-Centered and Participation-Focused Care Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The Participation and Environment Measure Plus (PEM+) is a new electronic health application to help caregivers contribute to client-centered and participation-focused care planning for their young child. The PEM+ is designed to help caregivers build on their participation assessment by determining priority activities, setting specific goals, and identifying strategies for goal attainment. OBJECTIVE: To examine the usability of the PEM+. DESIGN: A single-arm usability trial. SETTING: Two early intervention and early childhood educational programs. PARTICIPANTS: Six caregivers of children ages 0-3 yr with developmental delay and receiving rehabilitation services. INTERVENTION: Caregivers who were eligible and enrolled were given access to the PEM+ for 1 wk and instructed to complete one iteration. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Usability was assessed according to caregivers' report of PEM+'s technical effectiveness and ease of use, ease of learning, and user satisfaction via the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use questionnaire. RESULTS: All caregivers completed the PEM+ online once and in its entirety (mean completion time = 13.6 min). Mean technical effectiveness ratings ranged from 5.7 to 6.3 out of 7.0, and mean ease of use, ease of learning, and user satisfaction ratings were 4.4, 5.4, and 4.2 out of 6.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Caregivers of young children can navigate the PEM+. Trends in survey feedback informed optimizations for the PEM+ before further feasibility testing. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: This study provides preliminary evidence for a promising tool that can help to customize the way practitioners partner with families to create a plan for occupational therapy 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 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".