Intervention experiences among children with congenital and neonatal conditions impacting brain development: patterns of service utilization, barriers and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study examined reported patterns of utilization and barriers to early and school-age interventions, as well as directions for future care, among families of children with congenital or neonatal conditions with known-risk for poor neurocognitive development. The impact of the child's severity of injury, condition and adaptive functioning, as well as family sociodemographic factors were considered. METHODS: The sample included 62 parents (53 mothers, 5 fathers, 4 mother-father pairs) of children diagnosed with neonatal stroke, hypoxia ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), and congenital heart disease (CHD) ranging in age between 3 to 9 years (mean age = 4.5 years, SD = 1.82). RESULTS: In this sample, approximately 80% of children were reported to have had utilized one or more therapies. The most frequent services utilized included: (a) speech and language therapy, (b) occupational therapy, and (c) physical therapy. Less than 10% of sample reported utilizing any psychological therapies. Common family barriers to all interventions included time off work, lack of childcare, and transportation. Parents of children with more severe injury or condition reported that their children were utilizing a greater number of interventions and also perceived a greater number of barriers. Over half of the parents expressed a need for more parent support groups, remote psychosocial services, and individualized psychological therapy for themselves or their family. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight patterns of utilization and perceived gaps in early and school-age interventions for children with congenital or neonatal conditions that impact neurodevelopment. Direction for clinical care and improved intervention opportunities are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".