Perspectives of parents partnering with physical therapists to deliver intensive rehabilitation for their young children with perinatal stroke: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental participation in their young children's rehabilitation has been promoted to increase intervention intensity, but parents' perspectives on increased involvement remain unclear. The objective of this study was to explore parents' experiences partnering with physical therapists (PTs) to administer early, intensive rehabilitation to their young children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: Twelve mothers and one father of children between 8 months and 3 years old with CP were interviewed. Semistructured interviews were conducted before and after parents partnered with a PT to deliver a 12 week activity-based intervention targeting their child's lower extremities. The intervention occurred in the child's home and in PT clinical sites. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interpretive description was used as the methodological framework. RESULTS: The three themes were (1) focus on maximizing the child's potential, (2) participation in intensive rehabilitation is challenging, and (3) the importance of a positive experience with therapy. Families discussed a number of barriers and facilitators to participating in intensive rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide considerations for clinicians and researchers to facilitate meaningful engagement of parents in their young children's rehabilitation. This is especially important with increasing evidence for early, activity-based interventions for young children with CP.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".