Caregiver Perspectives on School Participation Among Students With Craniofacial Microsomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Knowledge of unmet school participation needs for students with craniofacial microsomia (CFM) can inform decisions regarding intervention support. OBJECTIVE: To compare students with and without CFM on school participation (i.e., frequency, involvement, desire for participation to change) and caregivers' perceptions of environmental support for participation in occupations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design using secondary analyses of a subset of data. SETTING: Multisite cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers of students with CFM (n = 120) and of students without CFM (n = 315), stratified by history of education- and health-related service use. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: School participation and environmental support, obtained with the Participation and Environment Measure-Children and Youth. RESULTS: Significant group differences were found in frequency of school participation (effect size [ES] = -0.38, 95% confidence interval [-0.64, -0.12], p = .005), level of involvement (ES = -0.14, p = .029), and desired change (p = .001), with students with CFM exhibiting greater participation restriction than students without CFM and no history of service use. No statistically significant group differences were found in environmental support for participation in the school setting. Item-level findings showed statistically significant higher desire for participation to change in three of five school occupations (odds ratio = 1.77-2.39, p = .003-.045) for students with CFM compared with students without CFM and no history of service use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results suggest that students with CFM experience restriction in participation at school. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: Students with CFM may benefit from targeted school-based interventions to optimize their inclusion.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".