MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409150961 · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12621-z

Facilitators and barriers to implementation of early intensive manual therapies for young children with cerebral palsy across Canada

2025· article· en· W4409150961 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Divya Vurrabindi, Alicia Hilderley, Adam Kirton, John Andersen, Christine Cassidy, Shauna Kingsnorth, Sarah Munce, Brenda Agnew, Liz Cambridge, Mia Herrero, Eleanor Leverington, Susan McCoy, Victoria Micek, Keith O Connor, Kathleen O’ Grady, Sandra Reist-Asencio, Chelsea Tao, Stephen Tao, Darcy Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesOntario Stroke NetworkBC Children's HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CalgaryGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersKids Brain Health Network
KeywordsImplementation researchMedicineCerebral palsyNursing researchHealth informaticsHealth administrationLikert scaleRespondentHealth careFamily medicineNursingPhysical therapyPublic healthPsychologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral Palsy (CP) is the most common childhood-onset motor disability. Play-based early intensive manual therapies (EIMT) is an evidence-based practice to improve long-term hand function particularly for children with asymmetric hand use due to CP. For children under two years old, this therapy is often delivered by caregivers who are coached by occupational therapists (OTs). However, why only a few Canadian sites implement this therapy is unclear. There is a need to identify strategies to support implementation of EIMT. The primary objective of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to EIMT implementation from the perspectives of (1) caregivers of children with CP (2), OTs and (3) healthcare administrators for paediatric therapy programs. METHODS: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide development of an online 5-point Likert scale survey to identify facilitators (scores of 4 and 5) and barriers (scores of 1 and 2) to implementation of EIMT. Three survey versions were co-designed with knowledge user partners for distribution to caregivers, OTs, and healthcare administrators across Canada. The five most frequently endorsed facilitators and barriers were identified for each respondent group. RESULTS: Fifteen caregivers, 54 OTs, and 11 healthcare administrators from ten Canadian provinces and one territory participated in the survey. The majority of the identified facilitators and barriers were within the 'Inner Setting' CFIR domain, with 'Structural Characteristics' emerging as the most reported CFIR construct. Based on the categorization of the most frequently endorsed facilitators and barriers within the CFIR domains, the key facilitators to EIMT implementation included the characteristics of the intervention and establishing positive workplace relationships and culture. The key barriers included having workplace restrictions on EIMT delivery models and external influences (e.g., funding) on EIMT uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key facilitators and barriers to implementing EIMT from a multi-level Canadian context. These findings will inform the next steps of designing evidence-informed and theory-driven implementation strategies to support increased delivery of EIMT for children under two years old with asymmetric hand use due to CP across Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→French-language works237,207→