Hippotherapy and life habits with children with motor deficit and neurodevelopmental impairment: A pilot survey of parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hippotherapy is used by rehabilitation professionals to assist children with various diagnoses. Despite parents' pivotal decision-making role regarding their children's life and treatment, little is known about their perceptions of hippotherapy's utility. This pilot study explored parents' opinions regarding hippotherapy's impact on their child's life habits, as guided by the Disability Creation Process model. METHODS: A survey was conducted in September/October 2017 with the parents of children with varied diagnoses receiving hippotherapy in Quebec. The survey asked parents to priority rank life habit categories and then grade hippotherapy's service characteristics and impact on children's life habits. Descriptive analysis and proportion tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The parents of 26 children completed the survey. These children were on average seven years old with multiple diagnoses (e.g., autism spectra, developmental delay). A positive impact was perceived for 10 of 12 life habit categories, with a statistically significant association found with Mobility and Interpersonal relationships. It was not possible to calculate the association between the profession involved and hippotherapy effects due to the small sample size. CONCLUSION: This investigation provides some promising results regarding the benefits of hippotherapy for children's life habits.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".