Implementation of a Family Centered Telecoaching Intervention for Parents of Children with Motor Difficulties: A Multimethod Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multimethod process evaluation aimed to explore the implementation of a telehealth coaching intervention for parents of children with motor difficulties. Four therapists and 59 parents participated. The dosage of 525 sessions was compared to the study protocol. Thirty-three external rater assessments, 62 therapists' self-adherence and 59 parent satisfaction surveys were analyzed descriptively for adherence, parent responsiveness and intervention quality. Therapists' interviews were analyzed thematically for implementation experience. A median of nine sessions per family was provided; only 58% were received within the prescribed timeframe. Adherence (83%), participant responsiveness (91%), and intervention quality (85%) were high, along with therapists' self-adherence (84%) and parent satisfaction (87%). Therapists reported partnering effectively with parents in the intervention and maintaining a family-oriented approach. Regular feedback and mentorship were the most effective implementation strategies identified by therapists. Telehealth coaching interventions can be implemented with high fidelity when therapists receive proper training and support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".