‘I Didn’t Know What to Expect’: Describing Parents’ Expectations in Children’s Rehabilitation Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this paper is to provide a holistic description of the nature, formation and impact of parents’ therapy related expectations.Methods: This qualitative descriptive study drew from initial and follow up interviews with 20 parents of children ≤ 6 years who had a developmental disability or delay and used therapy services at a children’s treatment center in Ontario, Canada. Conventional content analysis was used to inductively generate themes and investigator triangulation was completed.Results: Parent’s child related expectations focused on whether the child would receive a diagnosis and what they might achieve. Parents held expectations about the availability of service and how it would be offered. Parents’ expectations of service providers included their knowledge, skills, relationships and communication with the children and parents. Parents held expectations of themselves related to attendance and roles in therapy sessions and home practice. These expectations are described according to how they are shaped and changed them over time. The impact of matched/mismatched expectations is explored.Conclusion: Service providers can improve family-centred care and collaboration with parents by explicitly discussing parents’ expectations when beginning, and throughout, therapy. Parent satisfaction and therapy engagement may improve if parents and service providers negotiate and agree upon expectations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".