The Effect of Home Exercise Program on Motor Developmental Delay and Parental Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of Home Exercise Program (HEP) on motor developmental retardation and to what extent parents will be satisfied with this model in children aged 0-2 who have motor developmental delay and are not currently included in a rehabilitation program. Materials and Methods: We prepared case-specific home programs for the cases who applied to our outpatient clinic, We asked their parents to apply the HEP was given for their child in 3 sessions a day for 8 weeks. Motor development status was evaluated with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Satisfaction of the parents with the service they received was evaluated with the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire for the Physical Therapy Polyclinics. Results: There were improvements in all sub-parameters of AIMS after HEP. These improvements were also statistically significant (p=0.001). While the satisfaction rate of parents with their relationships with physiotherapists is 88.4%, the rate of satisfaction with their relationships with physicians is 82.8%. The factors with the lowest satisfaction rates are physical comfort (61.6%) and technical quality (61.8%), and 88.0% of the parents stated that they would prefer the hospital again, while 86.7% stated that they would recommend it to their relatives. Conclusion: HEP can be a savior in cases such as not leaving the baby without treatment until the physiotherapy program starts, initiating early intervention, families residing far from any health institution, and the pandemic process we have experienced soon, and parents are also satisfied with the HEP model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".