MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4376224864 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068816

Kindy Moves: the feasibility of an intensive interdisciplinary programme on goal and motor outcomes for preschool-aged children with neurodisabilities requiring daily equipment and physical assistance

2023· article· en· W4376224864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Haddon, L. West, Catherine Elliott, Corrin Walmsley, Jane Valentine, Natasha Bear, Dayna Pool

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGoal Attainment ScalingPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGross Motor Function Classification SystemGross motor skillIntervention (counseling)Motor skillCerebral palsyRehabilitationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of an intensive interdisciplinary programme in improving goal and motor outcomes for preschool-aged children with non-progressive neurodisabilities. The primary hypothesis was that the intervention would be feasible. DESIGN: A single group feasibility study. SETTING: An Australian paediatric community therapy provider. PARTICIPANTS: Forty children were recruited. Inclusion criteria were age 2-5 years with a non-progressive neurodisability, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels III-V or equivalent, and goals relating to mobility, communication and upper limb function. Exclusion criteria included orthopaedic surgery in the past 6 months, unstable hip subluxation, uncontrolled seizure disorder or treadmill training in the past month. INTERVENTION: A goal-directed programme of three 2-hour sessions per week for 4 weeks (24 hours total). This consisted of treadmill and overground walking, communication practice, and upper limb tasks tailored by an interdisciplinary team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Limited-efficacy measures from preintervention (T1) to postintervention (T2) and 4-week follow-up (T3) included the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66) and 10-Metre Walk Test (10MWT). Acceptability, demand, implementation and practicality were also explored. RESULTS: There were improvements at T2 compared with T1 for all limited-efficacy measures. The GAS improved at T2 (mean difference (MD) 27.7, 95% CI 25.8 to 29.5) as well as COPM performance (MD 3.2, 95% CI 2.8 to 3.6) and satisfaction (MD 3.3, 95% CI 2.8 to 3.8). The GMFM-66 (MD 2.3, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.5) and 10MWT (median difference -2.3, 95% CI -28.8 to 0.0) improved at T2. Almost all improvements were maintained at T3. Other feasibility components were also demonstrated. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive interdisciplinary programme is feasible in improving goal and motor outcomes for preschool children with neurodisabilities (GMFCS III-V or equivalent). A randomised controlled trial is warranted to establish efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619000064101.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→French-language works237,207→