Exploring the impact of professional development about family-centred service for health professionals working in paediatric disability: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the impact of family-centred service education on the knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and practice of service providers working in paediatric disability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy was completed in seven electronic databases. Screening and data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Data extraction included content, delivery methods and impact of professional development programs. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies reported on twenty programs. Participants were from multiple disciplines in 13 programs and families were involved in development, delivery, or as participants, in nine. Program content typically related to participatory caregiving. Synthesis of findings suggested the 'active ingredients' were dynamic interactions among the participants and facilitators, and the program content and delivery methods, that promoted reflection and shifting perspectives among participants. Studies reported positive impacts on service provider attributes, but few studies evaluated behaviours in practice and broader influences on family-centred services. CONCLUSIONS: While all programs involved active participation and relevant content, programs promoting reflection, sharing perspectives as part of a diverse group, and lived experience through family involvement, supported learning about family-centred services as both a philosophy and a process.
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 | 0.020 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".