Children with Cerebral Palsy Across the Gross Motor Function Classification System Levels Requiring Orthopaedic Surgery: The Lived Experiences of Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Orthopaedic surgery is often recommended for children with cerebral palsy (CP) across all Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels. Despite this, little is known about the experience of parents during their child's surgery and recovery. METHODS: This topic was explored using a mixed-methods research design. Using an interpretive description methodology, in-depth interviews with parents of children with CP who had undergone orthopaedic surgery were completed by a physical therapist within an interdisciplinary clinical context in an acute care orthopaedic surgery clinic. Transcripts were reviewed by inductive thematic analysis. Resulting themes were used to inform the development of a self-administered survey, which was distributed to a separate cluster sample of parents. RESULTS: From interviews with six parents, four themes were identified: (1) preparing and being prepared, (2) feeling known and recognized, (3) knowing and advocating for your child, and (4) feeling stressed and coping. The results of surveys completed by 25 parents were analyzed using descriptive statistics. When asked whether their child's surgery was a stressful experience, 80% (20/25) agreed. However, 60% (15/25) indicated that the surgery was not a negative experience. Forty-four percent (11/25) felt their child's recovery was longer than expected. Survey responses to questions related to the qualitative themes were similar across GMFCS levels and surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The findings identify the importance of recognizing the needs of parents and suggest opportunities for collaboration between the healthcare team and families in caring for children across the spectrum of functional mobility and orthopaedic procedures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".