Service Providers’ Perspectives on Using the ‘F-Words in Childhood Disability’: An International Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The 'F-words in Childhood Disability' - operationalizing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework - have attracted great interest around the world. However, we have yet to learn how service providers (SPs) are using them. The aim of this study was to explore international SPs' attitudes toward and use of the 'F-words'. METHODS: A survey was administered, guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior, including Likert-scaled statements and an open-ended question. Ninety-one SPs working with children with impairments from 27 countries completed the survey. RESULTS: While 82 agreed the 'F-words' are good practice, only 60 are using the 'F-words'. Similarly, 52 SPs agreed that their colleagues approved of their use and 54 felt they were easy for families to use and understand. Respondents reported three main uses: (i) support of preexisting clinical approaches, (ii) direct integration into practice, and (iii) being taught in higher education. They also identified barriers to implementation (e.g., alternative clinical approaches and limited resources). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide insights in how the 'F-words' are being used and the limitations thereof, which can inform future directions to support international implementation. With international SPs, we need to develop adapted dissemination tools to support uptake by individuals worldwide.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".