Weekly versus fortnightly Allied Health early intervention for children with diagnosed/suspected developmental delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and background: Reviewing service provision is prudent for early childhood development teams to ensure efficient and high quality service delivery. The context of this study is an outpatient, clinic-based, Allied Health Early Intervention service, for children, aged 1-4years with diagnosed/suspected developmental delay and their families, which is currently provided fortnightly over 10-weeks. This study aimed to compare the impact on carer and clinician preferences, client outcomes and efficiencies such as attendance rates, of weekly versus fortnightly clinics. Methods: A prospective multi-informant, group comparison design was conducted comparing fortnightly interventions over 10-weeks and weekly interventions over 5-weeks. Intervention outcome data (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure), attendance rates and questionnaire data completed by clinicians and carers, were compared between the two frequency periods. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between both models for overall attendance rates or outcome measures (n=25 fortnightly, n=29 weekly). Carers’ (n=97) and clinicians’ (n=36) perceptions showed a variety of preferences. Carers suggested weekly was preferable for children who function well with routine, have shorter term goals and homework and for rapport building. Concerns for vulnerable families regarding a shorter contact period of 5-weeks with the weekly service, compared to 10-weeks (for fortnightly service), were identified by clinicians. Consistent feedback from carers was weekly over 10-weeks as the best option. Clinician themes included perception of increased workload with weekly and additional time needed to observe change for some children. Carers for both models articulated practical attendance barriers. Conclusions: A flexible model of service frequency is recommended, to suit the needs of children and carers, aligning with clinicians’ clinical reasoning. Decision making considerations should include condition, type of therapy (need for intensity/longer period/routine/relationship building), family practicalities, family vulnerability and benefits of service contact time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".