Development of a Digital Decision Support Tool to Aid Participation of Children With Disabilities in Pediatric Rehabilitation Services: Explorative Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Building a health care system in accordance with the rule of law requires child-centered care, where children and young people, regardless of ability, are allowed to participate in visits with their health care professionals. As part of an overall project focusing on developing and implementing a digital decision support tool to increase the participation of children with disabilities in pediatric rehabilitation, this study brings new knowledge as to how this specific patient group views participation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this formative study was to explore the experiences of children and young people with disabilities concerning increasing their participation in the pediatric rehabilitation services. METHODS: The formative study had an explorative design, based on a latent qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach. Interviews were conducted with 20 children (6-17 years) and 8 young people (19-30 years) with disabilities about their experiences of participation in pediatric rehabilitation services. RESULTS: A total of 3 categories emerged reflecting the participants' possibilities of participation in the pediatric rehabilitation services: to feel involved, to feel independent, and to work in partnership. To feel involved meant being listened to and being connected, to feel independent meant being admitted and being enabled, and to work in partnership meant being supported and being able to entrust others with the decision making. With the overall theme moving toward empowerment of children in pediatric rehabilitation, a true feeling of participation can be experienced. CONCLUSIONS: The views of children and young people with disabilities are that children should be given the prerequisites for empowerment by being allowed to feel involved and independent as well as to work in partnership to experience true participation in the pediatric rehabilitation services. This finding is essential in the design of a digital decision support tool based on the children's needs and perspectives.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".