Exploring occupational therapists’ use of movement guidelines for young children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Children with developmental disabilities are less likely than their peers without disabilities to meet the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines which provide daily recommendations for time spent in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Occupational Therapists (OTs) are well-positioned to support the engagement of preschoolers with developmental disabilities in movement but little is known about if, and how, they might use these guidelines. Purpose. This study examined knowledge, awareness, and guideline-, client-, and environment-related factors influencing the use of the guidelines by OTs working with children (aged 3–4 years) with developmental disabilities. The secondary purpose was to explore relationships between these factors and OT education and experience. Method. The validated Clinician Guideline Determinants Questionnaire ( n = 51 items) was administered via Qualtrics to a sample of Canadian pediatric OTs. Descriptive statistics were employed. Findings. Participants (n = 28 OTs) reported moderate to high agreement with the guidelines varying by movement type. Participants agreed they possessed the skills, knowledge, and external support to use the recommendations in practice but were less likely to agree with having training, implementation tools, and self-efficacy to implement the guidelines. Conclusion . Canada's 24-Hour Movement Guidelines hold potential for use by OTs, but capacity-building is required to support implementation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".