A multi-center, pragmatic, effectiveness-implementation (hybrid I) cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate a child-oriented goal-setting approach in paediatric rehabilitation (the ENGAGE approach): a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child-oriented goal-setting in pediatric rehabilitation may improve child motivation, engagement in therapy, child outcomes related to therapy, and service delivery efficiency. The primary objective of this trial is to determine the effectiveness of a principles-driven, child-focused approach to goal-setting, Enhancing Child Engagement in Goal-Setting (ENGAGE), on pediatric rehabilitation outcomes compared to usual practice. The three secondary objectives are to 1) compare costs and secondary outcomes of the ENGAGE approach to usual practice, 2) determine the influence of child, parent and therapist characteristics on child engagement in therapy and rehabilitation outcomes, and 3) identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ENGAGE. METHODS: This research protocol describes a pragmatic, multi-site, cluster, effectiveness-implementation (hybrid type 1 design) randomized controlled trial. Therapists (n = 12 clusters of two therapists) at participating sites (n = 6) will be randomized to 1) the ENGAGE intervention group, or 2) usual care (control) using a computer-generated, permuted-block randomization sequence with site as a stratification variable designed by a statistician (RR). Each therapist will recruit four children 5-12 years old with neurodevelopmental conditions (n = 96), who will receive ENGAGE or usual care, according to therapist group allocation. ENGAGE therapists will be trained to use a 'toolbox' of evidence-driven, theory-informed principles to optimize child and parent motivation, engagement in the goal-setting process, and performance feedback strategies. Outcomes include goal performance (primary outcome), engagement in therapy, functional abilities, participation, and parent and child quality of life. Qualitative interviews with children, parents, ENGAGE therapists, and managers will explore challenges to implementation and potential mitigation strategies. Mixed effects multiple linear regression models will be developed for each outcome to assess group differences adjusted for clustering. A cost-effectiveness analysis will combine cost and a measure of effectiveness into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Qualitative data on implementation will be analyzed inductively (thematic analysis) and deductively using established implementation science frameworks. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effects of collaborative goal-setting in pediatric rehabilitation and inform effective implementation of child-focused goal-setting practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05017363 (registered August 23, 2021 on ClinicalTrials.gov).
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 | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".