Practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention combined with a context-focused intervention for children with cerebral palsy: a protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need to investigate relevant, acceptable and feasible approaches that promote participation in leisure-time physical activity for children with cerebral palsy (CP). The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing a peer-group intervention focused on improving physical literacy (Sports Stars) with the combination of Sports Stars and a context-focused intervention (Pathways and Resources for Engagement and Participation, PREP) for ambulant children with CP in Brazil. METHODS: In this feasibility trial, 18 ambulant children (aged 6-12 years) with CP will be randomised into two groups (nine per group): (1) Sports Stars and (2) Sports Stars plus PREP. The Sports Stars group will receive 8 weekly group sessions, focusing on developing the physical, social, cognitive and psychological skills required to participate in popular Brazilian sports. The combined Sports Stars and PREP group will receive Sports Stars in addition to eight individual PREP sessions focused on overcoming environmental barriers to participation. The primary outcome will include feasibility measures: willingness to participate in an RCT, eligibility and recruitment rates, maintenance of evaluator blinding, acceptability of screening procedures and random allocation, feasibility of evaluating outcomes, contamination between the groups, intervention adherence, treatment satisfaction, understanding of the intervention and implementation resources. Additional instruments will be applied to obtain data related to leisure-time physical activity participation goals, overall participation (home, school and community), physical literacy, level of physical activity and family empowerment. Outcomes will be assessed before, after and 12 weeks after intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This feasibility trial has been approved by ethical Federal University of Minas Gerais' Ethics Review Committee (CAAE: 33238520.5.0000.5149). All potential subjects will provide written informed consent. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and be presented at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: RBR-4m3b4b6, U1111-1256-4998.
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 | 0.058 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.012 |
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".