The civil rights of disabled children in physiotherapy practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore the experiences of civil rights of disabled children receiving physiotherapy in New Zealand. As yet there is limited attention given to this topic in rehabilitation literature. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study that drew on the fields of childhood studies and disability studies to address the study aim. Seven disabled children who used local physiotherapy services (aged between four and 14 years) were interviewed using child-centered methods. In addition, their parents were interviewed individually, and eight rehabilitation professionals and disability advocates took part in a focus group discussion. Interpretive thematic analysis was used to analyze findings. FINDINGS: The participating disabled children all appreciated being informed about physiotherapy, but had individual preferences regarding involvement in decision making. They described positive and negative influences on their experiences, but indicated they may not have been asked by adults about these. Parents, professionals and advocates described that attempting to promote a positive experience for children is constrained by understandings regarding the purposes and practices of physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest it is important to get an understanding of individual children's views and preferences regarding physiotherapy in order to promote opportunities for choice, control and satisfaction. In this way physiotherapists can ensure disabled children's civil rights are realized in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".