Success or Failure? Are We Meeting the Needs of Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Current international clinical practice guidelines indicate that children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) should receive therapy, yet school and community-based occupational therapy is not standard of care. Purpose. To understand parent perspectives on best practice for treatment and what supports and services are required to meet their children's needs. Method. An online cross-sectional survey (impACT for DCD) was distributed to parents of children <18 years with self-reported suspected or diagnosed DCD living in British Columbia. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and contingency analyses to explore whether access to therapy differed with income, age of child, or geographical location. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis. Findings. Of the 237 respondents, 194 children had suspected/confirmed DCD; however, only 20% (38/198) of the children had received therapy at school. Some parents (32/58) pursued private therapy. Geographic location and income had no relationship with therapy access ( p > 0.05). Parents expressed frustration with poor awareness and understanding of the impact of DCD among educators, health-care professionals, and community members, and identified the need for funded and accessible school and community services and supports. Conclusion. Evidenced-based occupational therapy intervention should be standard of care for children with DCD as per clinical guidelines and parent-identified need.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".