Barriers and facilitators to lower extremity orthotic compliance in the pediatric population: A scoping review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the purported benefits of lower extremity orthotics in the literature, pediatric compliance rates remain low. This scoping review synthesized the available literature regarding barriers and facilitators to lower extremity orthotic compliance in the pediatric population using the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth (ICF). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL was conducted on May 11, 2021, and of PsycInfo on May 12, 2021. Article reference lists and gray literature were also searched. A total of 81 articles were included. Factors described in at least four articles were labeled as universal barriers or facilitators. In the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth domain of Body Functions/Body Structures, universal barriers were present in the global mental functions, experience of self and time, sensory functions, function of joints and bones, and structures related to the skin subcategories, with no universal facilitators identified. For the Activity Limitations/Participation Restrictions domain, one universal facilitator was identified in the mobility subcategory. In the Environmental Contextual Factors domain, universal barriers were found in the attitudes of immediate and extended family and societal attitude subcategories, with both universal barriers and facilitators found in support & relationships: immediate and extended family, support and relationships: health professionals, services, systems, and policies, and products and technology. The reviewed literature strongly emphasizes the importance of proper orthotic fit and comfort, and the child's experience of self, for lower extremity orthotic compliance, along with multiple environmental factors.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".