Electronic participation‐focused care planning support for families: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of Participation and Environment Measure-Plus (PEM+) 2.0, an optimized version of a web-based, participation-focused, care-planning tool. METHOD: Twenty-two caregivers of children aged 0 to 5 years receiving rehabilitation services, who reported dissatisfaction with their child's participation, had internet access, and could read and write English, were recruited for this 2-week, single-arm pilot trial. Feasibility was assessed through retention rates, completion time, percentage of care plans developed relative to caregiver reported need, and independent completion of PEM+ 2.0. Acceptability was assessed by the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use Questionnaire. Preliminary effects were assessed by two items on caregiver reported impact of PEM+ 2.0 on confidence for addressing their child's participation. RESULTS: Eighteen caregivers completed at least one iteration of PEM+ 2.0; of those, 17 were female and 15 were 30 to 39 years old. The median completion time was 12.99 minutes (quartile 1, 6.30; quartile 3, 17.33), mean care plan creation relative to need was 50% (standard deviation [SD] 31), and 17 completed PEM+ 2.0 independently. Mean acceptability scores were 3.80 to 4.97 (SD 1.25-1.97) and mean preliminary effect scores were 4.61 to 4.72 (SD 1.85-2.24), out of 7.0. There were strong and significant positive associations between two of the three estimates of PEM+ 2.0 acceptability and caregiver confidence (r=0.577-0.793, p<0.01). INTERPRETATION: Electronic health tools have the potential for facilitating family-centered care in pediatric rehabilitation. PEM+ 2.0 is a feasible tool within pediatric rehabilitation and has potential to be an acceptable tool for improving caregiver confidence for promoting their child's participation in valued activities. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Participation and Environment Measure-Plus (PEM+) 2.0 is feasible for collaboratively engaging caregivers in the care-planning process. Caregivers perceived PEM+ 2.0 as helpful for thinking about their child's participation and what can be done to improve it. Feasibility and acceptability results will inform PEM+ 2.0 optimizations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".