Improving Children’s Rehabilitation Service Quality and Experience Through Innovative Programming: A Developmental Evaluation of the Bright Ideas Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Evidence-informed practice (EIP) is a widely accepted approach to providing rehabilitation services, however there are barriers to implementation. Bright Ideas is an innovative program developed by KidsAbility’s Rocket Discovery Centre, aiming enhance uptake of EIP through incubating ideas identified by KidsAbility staff linked to organizational priorities of enhancing service access and outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate Bright Ideas by identifying perceived successes and challenges associated with the program with the aim of supporting clinical innovation and the adoption of evidence-informed practices in children’s rehabilitation centres. Methods: A developmental evaluation approach was utilized to complete a real-time evaluation of Bright Ideas. Bright Ideas program materials were reviewed to describe the program. A focus group and interview were conducted with staff who led Bright Ideas projects ( n = 7) to gain insight into their experiences. Additionally, interviews were conducted with the program coordinators ( n = 2) to understand the evolution of the program. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Successes that drive the Bright Ideas program and roadblocks it has encountered were identified across three dimensions: the personal level (involving Bright Ideas project leads), the programmatic level (focusing on the Bright Ideas program), and the organizational level (pertaining to KidsAbility as a whole). Key roadblocks included a lack of knowledge about the program organizationally, restricted time resources, competing organizational priorities, and an absence of infrastructure to scale ideas from Bright Ideas into the organization. Conclusions: Bright Ideas is an innovative program aiming to make impactful change by enabling staff to lead implementation-driven projects. Our findings highlight many successes of the program and use the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel to make recommendations to support its sustained implementation at KidsAbility.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".