Childrens Developmental Intervention Services: A Scoping Review of Canadian Experiences and Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children’s treatment centres are a key service point for children with impairments and developmental disabilities. However, the current state of children’s developmental intervention services (CDIS) in Canada has been only minimally described. Currently, two knowledge gaps in CDIS research need to be addressed, requiring a scoping review of the existing literature. First, the current trends and areas understudied in CDIS in Canada are unknown. Second, there is a need to explore important factors and outcomes of children’s service utilization in a comprehensive manner, a topic which is of interest to readers globally. Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify key factors shown to influence service utilization and areas understudied in CDIS based on Canadian literature. Methods: Twenty-three peer-reviewed articles were selected for review. Andersen's Model of Healthcare Utilization was used as a lens to extract the data, and the findings were examined through the domains of Andersen’s Model. Results: Studies focused heavily on exploring the healthcare system and familycentred services. The analysis revealed that higher rates of service utilization are associated with younger age, males, and children with lower cognitive or motor functioning. Occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech-language pathologists are the most utilized disciplines. Higher perceptions of service satisfaction are related to increased presence of FCS at the centres. At the same time, personal health practices, participation and functional outcomes in relation to service utilization require more research. Conclusion: We recommend future researchers examine interactions among key factors identified in this scoping review, as well as explore understudied areas to obtain a comprehensive understanding of CDIS factors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.086 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".