A cross-country comparison of the impact of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder affecting one in 20 children, yet it is under-recognised and under-supported. To raise awareness of the challenges associated with DCD and to improve support, an international campaign has been launched – Impact for DCD. National surveys have been completed across 6 countries to date, examining challenges relating to diagnosis, function, participation, education, therapy, and the socio-emotional impact on the child and family. Findings from this large-scale international dataset (based on N = 2000 children: Australia n = 443; Belgium n = 491; Canada n = 488; Sweden n = 106; United Kingdom n = 240; United States of America n = 232) will be shared, accompanied by parental lived experiences. Key findings across the countries will be presented, including barriers to diagnosis, the use of inconsistent terminology, limited funding for support, lack of awareness, and high rates of mental health issues. We will explore similarities and differences between countries and delve into possible underlying factors contributing to these findings and possible (inter)national solutions. Relevance The ‘ImpACT for DCD’ is a research initiative by academics and stakeholders to measure the IMPact of DCD and to assist in the initiation of the ACTion required for change. The results can support efforts for increased awareness and availability of services. It empowers individuals to know that they are not alone in facing these challenges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".