How best to support parents in the management of standing frame usage in home settings: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An improved understanding of the current practice of standing frame use may have implications for supporting parents in managing standing frames. We aimed to investigate how parents of children with cerebral palsy perceive and manage standing frame use in home settings. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory sequential design, first collecting and analysing quantitative questionnaire data and then using these results to inform a qualitative follow-up phase to explain them. The questionnaire was answered by 103 parents of children with cerebral palsy across five countries, Denmark, Norway, Great Britain, Canada and the United States, and 12 Danish families participated in the subsequent interviews. A descriptive analysis was conducted using the questionnaire data. The qualitative data were analysed using a directed content analysis, enabling integration of the quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: The quantitative analysis showed that 89% of the parents felt confident with their child's standing frame, and 82% felt they had sufficient knowledge about how their child's standing frame could/should be used. However, the qualitative analysis showed that even when feeling confident, the parents experienced insecurity regarding whether their child was positioned correctly, and being responsible for positioning was challenging. CONCLUSION: Our study implies a need for providing educational materials to assist the parents in ensuring optimal positioning of their child in the standing frame to decrease insecurity. Additionally, our study suggests a need to provide more thorough information about the benefits of using a standing frame and ensure alignment of expectations in relation to the child's prognosis of functional independence.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".