Integrated case management : a preliminary study to determine what helps and what hinders - the parent perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This preliminary study explored what helped and hindered the Integrated Case Management Care Team process from the parents' perspective. The researcher conducted 8 semi-structured interviews with 10 parents of children who have had an ICM Care Team within the past 3 years. The data was analyzed using Flanagan's (1954) Critical Incident Technique (CIT). In striving to meet modern standards for the CIT (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 1005), several procedures were used to examine the reliability and validity of the categories. One hundred eighteen incidents were found to be helpful in achieving the aims of the Care Team, while 60 were found to be hindering in achieving those aims. A total of 8 categories and 15 subcategories became the organizational scheme of the data. A majority of the incidents are represented by these categories: (a) Structure and Function of the Team (b) Outcomes (c) The Team Members (d) Communication and (e) Cultural Issues. As in previous studies (e.g., Rutman, Hubberstey, Hume, & Tait, 1998), communication was found to be a vital aspect of ICM. An overarching these that emerged is that parents value the care team process and the commitment that the members demonstrate towards their children. However they also all expressed concerns with the agencies providing services to children and with the school system - and this often was related to budgets, power, and bureaucracy. Several helpful hints for successful Care Teams are provided. The parents in this study emphasized that they need to feel valued and respected as members of their child's Care Team. Moreover, they stated that this is achieved when they are involved in decision making, when they are treated as equal to other team members, and when they are regarded as being an expert on their own child.--Page iii.
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".