Parents' Perspectives on a Computer Game–Assisted Rehabilitation Program for Manual Dexterity in Children With Cerebral Palsy: Qualitative Analysis of Expectations, Child Engagement, and Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with motor impairments affecting the upper extremity benefit from task-specific therapy, such as constraint-induced movement therapy. However, there is a need to improve engagement and compliance with task-specific exercise programs that target manual dexterity for children with cerebral palsy (CP). A computer game-based rehabilitation (GRP) platform was developed that combines fine manipulation and gross movement exercises with engaging game activities appropriate for young children with CP. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this qualitative analysis were to compare parents' perspectives and opinions about expectations, challenges, and benefits between 2 interventions. METHODS: A mixed methods, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to examine the feasibility and estimate the effect size of 2 exercise programs for rehabilitation of manual dexterity of children with CP using either GRP or conventional therapy. Parents of 26 of the children who completed the GRP program (n=33) and parents of 15 of the children who completed the conventional therapy program (n=27) participated in the interviews. A general conductive approach was used to analyze the data recorded during the parents' interviews. RESULTS: Five themes captured the range of the parent's experiences, viewpoints, and ideas: (1) parents' expectations, (2) child's engagement with therapy, (3) positive effects of the interventions, (4) challenges, and (5) improving the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Parents from both groups recognized that their expectations related to improving children's object handling and manipulation skills including participation in activities of daily life were addressed during the 16-week therapy program. Parents perceived a change in the children's level of independence in their daily tasks at home, school, and leisure activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02728375; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02728375.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".