Research and knowledge transfer priorities in developmental coordination disorder: Results from consultations with multiple stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Priority-setting is a way to focus research and knowledge translation (KT) efforts for community-based research partnerships (CBRP). OBJECTIVE: To identify the developmental coordination disorder (DCD) research and KT priorities of stakeholders in Quebec, Canada, and their perceptions regarding the implementation of a CBRP. DESIGN: An advisory committee oversaw the research process including an online survey and four community forums. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The survey was posted online and four community forums were organized. Participants included parents of children with DCD, adults with DCD, health professionals and school staff. MAIN VARIABLES: Stakeholder generated research and KT priorities, and optimal CBPR conditions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants selected their top five priorities based on a predefined list of 16 research and 12 KT priorities determined in collaboration with the advisory committee. They also rated the importance of various CBRP conditions. Preliminary survey results were discussed during the forums. RESULTS: Survey participants (n = 395) identified interwoven research and KT priorities where access to services was considered to be essential: supporting children at school; improving DCD identification and diagnosis; preventing secondary consequences; improving the organization of services and implementing effective services. Forum participants (n = 52) confirmed the relevance of these priorities and supported the establishment of a CBRP inclusive of all stakeholders to improve DCD services, research and KT. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A general consensus emerged among all groups, but adults with DCD were more concerned with employment than were the other stakeholder groups. These findings are presently being used to shape an ongoing, online CBRP.
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 | 0.125 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".