Acceptability of Pediatric Telerehabilitation Interventions Provided by Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists—A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the available literature and identify gaps regarding the acceptability of telerehabilitation interventions provided by pediatric physical therapists and occupational therapists. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR) framework to guide this scoping review. We systematically searched eight scholarly databases (CINAHL, Medline, SPORTDiscus, AMED, APA PsychInfo, SCOPUS, PEDro, OTseeker), five gray literature databases (MedlinePlus, Gray Literature Report, OpenGrey, National Institute for Health, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global [PQDT]), conducted a manual search of selected references and contacted international experts. We included articles published between 2000 and 2021. Acceptability was defined in accordance with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability of Sekhon et al. From a total of 1567 unique references, 123 were deemed eligible for full-text review. Eighteen studies published between 2011 and 2021 were included in this review. Even though every aspect of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was assessed from a variety of angles, a complete appreciation of the concept is still lacking for pediatric telerehabilitation. This review highlights important gaps in our knowledge regarding the acceptability of pediatric telerehabilitation interventions and supports the need for further research focusing on the subject.
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 | 0.097 | 0.304 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".