Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective(s): Strong evidence of the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for children with motor difficulties is still lacking, along with how well these interventions are implemented.This study aimed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a Web-based Early Intervention for Children using multimodAl REhabilitation (WECARE).Study Participants & Setting: Two participant groups were involved.Therapists (i.e. two physiotherapists and two occupational therapists) delivering the WECARE intervention, with a mean of 13 years of pediatric experience, were recruited and trained.Although experience in pediatric rehabilitation was required, prior use of telerehabilitation or coaching approaches was not.One hundred and eighteen parents of children aged 3 to 8 years old with motor difficulties living in Quebec, Canada, able to speak English or French, not receiving public rehabilitation services at time of recruitment, and able to identify at least one motor-related functional goal for their child consented to participate.Materials/Methods: To assess implementation, an external rater completed monthly assessments of video-recorded WECARE intervention sessions for adherence, participant responsiveness and intervention quality using an 18item checklist.The WECARE intervention consisted of 30-minute telecoaching sessions offered every 2 weeks for the first 3 months to families randomized to that group.For the remaining 9 months, consultations occurred based on the family's request.Ratings were descriptively analyzed and compared to the intervention protocol.To assess effectiveness, consenting parents were randomized into the WECARE or usual care groups.Those randomized to the control group received care as per the service delivery model available in their jurisdiction.Every 3 months, participants in both groups self-rated their goals using the COPM performance scale and added goals.The number of parent-identified motor goals achieved out of those set, as measured by the COPM, was compared between the groups using a mixed Poisson regression model.Results: Intervention adherence (83%), participant responsiveness (90.5%) and intervention quality (85%) were rated high.Moreover, the WECARE group had 1.12 times more goals achieved compared to the controls (95% CI: 1.00-1.25;p = 0.05).Conclusions/Significance: Telecoaching interventions such as WECARE can be implemented with high fidelity, and support parents of children with motor difficulties in achieving the goals they identify for their child.These findings challenge many traditional therapeutic assumptions which perceive hands-on in-person child-focused interventions as the gold standard for addressing motor difficulties in children.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.867 | 0.708 |
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".