Perspectives from clinicians and managers: facilitators and barriers to the uptake of rehabilitation guidance for children with arthrogryposis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the perceived facilitators and barriers among clinicians and managers about the uptake of expert guidance for rehabilitation of children with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (AMC) in practice. METHODS: Qualitative study using individual interviews, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to explore beliefs and to identify facilitators and barriers to guidance uptake. Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 15 clinicians working with children with AMC and four pediatric clinical managers using Microsoft Teams©. Interviews were then transcribed verbatim and analyzed by four independent reviewers using deductive and inductive coding. RESULTS: The TDF domains of Environmental Context and Resources, Behavioural Regulation, Reinforcement, Beliefs about Consequences, and Social Influences were shared amongst clinicians and clinical managers across North America and Europe as being relevant and influential on the target behaviour of using rehabilitation expert guidance to manage pediatric patients. Among clinicians only, the domain Memory, Attention, and Decision-Making Processes was also found relevant. Among managers only, the domain Social/Professional Role and Identity was found relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Coupling shared relevant domains amongst clinicians and managers with individual supports and barriers helps to map out what is needed to promote the uptake of rehabilitation guidance at multiple levels.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".