Describing Caregiver and Clinician Experiences with Pediatric Telerehabilitation Across Clinical Disciplines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scope: This study describes the high and low points of caregiver and clinician experiences with pediatric telerehabilitation with consideration for the sustainable adoption of pediatric telerehabilitation beyond the COVID-19 pandemic context. Methods: As part of a larger study, this project analyzed data from qualitative interviews to describe caregivers' (n = 27) and clinicians' (n = 27) experiences with pediatric telerehabilitation. Findings: Caregiver and clinician experiences with pediatric telerehabilitation are described according to four touchpoints identified: (1) child engagement in telerehabilitation; (2) perceived value of telerehabilitation services and caregiver engagement; (3) preparing the people and environment for telerehabilitation services; (4) fit of using a telerehabilitation model; and (5) providing family with choice. Discussion: Findings highlight the importance of being informed about the telerehabilitation service model, feeling prepared for telerehabilitation appointments and being responsive to families' choice. Recommendations to address these areas are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".