Does Policy Impact Equitable Access to Services? A Critical Discourse Analysis of Discharge Policies in Paediatric Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having the choice to access rehabilitation services is a right of disabled children. In Ontario, Canada, paediatric rehabilitation services are provided by Children’s Treatment Centres (CTCs), and many manage missed appointments using discharge policies. The impact of discharge policies on access to rehabilitation services is unknown. This study critically examined the language of policies around missed appointments and impacts on service access. Using qualitative critical discourse analysis, text from discharge policies was analysed, considering how marginalised groups (e.g., low-income families, culturally diverse families) may be affected by CTC discharge policies. Discourses of family-centred service, health equity and the perpetuation of established power relations within paediatric rehabilitation were represented in the language of policies. Current policies place the organisation in a position of power, de-value family choice and risk infringing on the right of disabled children to access paediatric rehabilitation services when desired.
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 | 0.035 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".