Sibling participation in occupational therapy for children with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: This case series describes the implementation of participation-based occupational therapy for children with physical disabilities and their siblings. Methods: Case 1 was a 3-year-old girl with spina bifida and her brother, and case 2 was an 8-year-old boy with cerebral palsy and his sister. Families collaborated in developing a goal for social participation in play. The Sibling Participation in Occupational Therapy (SPOT), an adaptation of the Collaborative Process for Action Plans to Achieve Children's Participation Goals, guided an assessment of factors related to the goal and development of an action plan. The interventions, encouragement, and collaboration were used most often. Interventions for performance skills differed across cases and related to children's ages, interests, and functional abilities. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) assessed individualized goals, and participants completed an experience questionnaire. Results: Parent COPM ratings demonstrated a meaningful increase in performance and satisfaction, and the therapist and parent ratings of the GAS met or exceeded expected achievement. Parents and sibling dyads reported positive experiences on the questionnaire. Conclusion: The outcomes support SPOT with families who have a child with a physical disability to apply a participation-based approach inclusive of siblings that is consistent with family-centered practice and addressing occupations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".