A stakeholder-involved adaptation of pathways and resources for engagement and participation (PREP) material with young adults with complex disability in Australia: an implementation feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pathways and Resources for Engagement and Participation (PREP) is an intervention to optimise individuals' participation by building problem-solving capacity and addressing environmental barriers. We investigated the feasibility of implementing PREP with young adults (18-30 years) with complex disability in Australia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Explanatory sequential mixed methods study in three stages. (i) PREP materials were collaboratively adapted by the research team and consumer research partners. (ii) Steps 1 and 2 of PREP (YA Supplement) were completed with three young adults with disability, and preliminary feasibility explored using qualitative methods. (iii) The feasibility of implementing adapted materials was examined using quantitative and qualitative methods involving four young adults with disability, six support people and two service providers. RESULTS: Stage 1: PREP Young Adults Supplement (PREP (YA Supplement)) for use alongside PREP was developed. Stages 2 and 3: findings indicated PREP (YA Supplement) was acceptable, appropriate and feasible. Three themes were identified: setting and achieving goals were associated with challenges and benefits; finding the right time to implement the program was necessary; and PREP (YA Supplement) drives a shift to a participation-focused approach. CONCLUSION: PREP delivered alongside PREP (YA Supplement) appears feasible with Australian young adults with complex disability.
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 | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".