MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394892408 · doi:10.1080/17518423.2024.2340454

Utilizing an Environmental Framework to Explore the Acceptability of a Health Promotion Program for Youth with Disabilities

2024· article· en· W4394892408 on OpenAlexafffund
Meaghan Walker, Gillian King, Toni Lui, Nivatha Moothathamby, Amy C. McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCerebral palsyHealth promotionCoachingPsychologySpina bifidaPsychological interventionPromotion (chess)Applied psychologyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyGerontologyNursingPublic healthPsychiatryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the acceptability of Children and Teens in Charge of their Health (CATCH), a program for children with spina bifida or cerebral palsy to enhance their physical activity and diet. Qualitative interviews were conducted with children (n = 6) and their parents (n = 6) who participated in CATCH. Analysis used an environmental systems framework. Microsystem factors impacting acceptability of the program were: Children’s motivations for change, their age, and their physical health. Mesosystem factors were: Use of virtual coaching and the relationship between coach and child. Macrosystem factors (e.g. Covid-19), did not impact acceptability, but affected some goal attainment strategies. CATCH was broadly acceptable to children and parents and shows promise as a health promotion program tailored to children with disabilities. An environmental systems framework can potentially help other health promotion programs enhance their acceptability and success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207