An examination of the role of clinical psychology in meeting the needs of young disabled clients and their families/carers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the views of clients with a physical disability, general practitioners and staff working in health and social work physical disability services about the needs of young disabled people. The most common area of disability seen by GPs was respiratory, followed by cardiac problems and stroke. With the exception of cardiac patients a third to over half of GPs felt that the needs of the identified groups were not being adequately met, in particular the needs of individuals with progressive neuromuscular problems. Over a quarter of clients felt that their needs were not being adequately met. Ninety-five percent of GPs and 100% of staff identified psychological needs of clients. For clients themselves, physical needs are ranked highest, with over 33 percent identifying psychological problems, 50 percent neuropsychological problems and 25 percent psychosexual difficulties as priority needs. In relation to carers, over 90 percent of GPs, 100% of staff and 50 percent of clients highlighted psychological needs. The majority of participants felt that clinical psychology had an important role to play in physical disability services. There was broad agreement on the areas of need which psychology would be seen to address. These were psychological needs, behavioural problems, neuropsychological problems and relationship/psychosexual difficulties. A high percentage of both staff and GPs also saw a role for clinical psychology in meeting the psychological, relationship and psychosexual needs of carers.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".