Environment‐based approaches to improve participation of young people with physical disabilities during <scp>COVID</scp>‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the effects of the Pathways and Resources for Engagement and Participation (PREP) intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) activity performance and satisfaction, and (2) motor, cognitive, and affective body functions. METHOD: An interrupted time-series design with multiple baselines across 21 young people (13 females, eight males) aged 16 to 25 years (median = 21 years 5 months) with physical disabilities was employed. The young people engaged in an 8-week self-chosen leisure activity (e.g. football, piano, photography) at their home or community. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assessed activity performance and satisfaction weekly. Mental health problems, including affective and cognitive outcomes, were assessed weekly using the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition. Motor functions (e.g. trunk control, reaching, strength) were assessed biweekly. Linear mixed-effects models were used. RESULTS: The intervention had large effects on activity performance (0.78) and satisfaction (0.88) with clinically significant change in COPM scores (2.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 2.0-3.2] and 3.2 points [95% CI: 2.4-3.9] respectively). Young people without mental health problems at baseline benefited more from the intervention (p = 0.028). Improvements in at least one domain of body function occurred in 10 young people especially for motor outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Results demonstrate the effectiveness of PREP during adverse times and suggest benefits going beyond participation, involving outcomes at the body-function level. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Environmental-based interventions can improve participation even during adverse times such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant improvement with large effect sizes occurred in both activity performance and satisfaction. Intervention was effective for all; those without mental health problems benefited more. Improvements in body-function outcomes were partially observed, especially in motor-related outcomes. Body functions may improve through participation even if not targeted by the intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".