A Clinical Practice Guide to Enhance Physical Activity Participation for Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This clinical practice guide (CPG) aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for promoting and enhancing the participation and integration of children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) into physical activities that take place in the home, school, community, or rehabilitation clinic contexts. Methods: A panel of key stakeholders relevant to these contexts (parents, instructors, rehabilitation professionals) developed evidence-based recommendations using a consensus methodology after reviewing results from a recent systematic review of relevant literature. The quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based was evaluated (2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence scale) as was the strength of the final CPG recommendations (American Society of Plastic Surgeons Grade Recommendation Scale). Results: Recommendations (n = 50; 36% supported by robust, empirically derived evidence) for the different stakeholder groups fell into three categories: 1) Choose an appropriate activity for your child, 2) Harmonize the activity with the child's interests and abilities, and 3) Help the child learn new movements prior to the activity. Conclusions: This comprehensive CPG provides concrete recommendations, based on the currently available evidence, that can be used by stakeholders to address the physical activity participation and integration needs of children with DCD in a variety of contexts.
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 | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".