Family-Professional Collaborative Physical Therapy Intervention via Telehealth for Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Mixed-Method Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate attendance rates, daily therapy engagement, parents’ perceptions regarding feasibility, acceptability, family-centeredness, and individualized outcomes of a collaborative telehealth-based physical therapy intervention for children with disabilities. Mixed-method design involving 15 families and 17 children with disabilities (range age 4–90 months). Parents recorded time spent on home activities. Family-centeredness was assessed using the Measure of Processes of Care-20-item (MPOC-20). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) were used to measure individualized outcomes. Interviews were conducted on families’ perceptions of the telehealth service. Parents attended an average of 8.29 out of 9 scheduled telehealth sessions and spent an average of 1.32 (±0.58) hours per day on therapy activities. Parents rated the services as family-centered “to a fairly great extent” or “to a great extent”. On average, children achieved individualized goals. Parents identified therapists’ collaborative behaviors and information sharing as facilitators, beliefs about their abilities and technical issues as barriers, and empowerment and active engagement as benefits of the telehealth sessions. The family-professional collaborative telehealth physical therapy was perceived by parents as acceptable and feasible to address their children needs. Children achieved individualized goals and participating families actively engaged in the intervention process.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".