青年参与过渡的试点测试:青年、家长和学校物理治疗师的观点。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Hilary D Terhune, Lisa A Chiarello, Robert J Palisano, Lorraine Sylvester
{"title":"青年参与过渡的试点测试:青年、家长和学校物理治疗师的观点。","authors":"Hilary D Terhune, Lisa A Chiarello, Robert J Palisano, Lorraine Sylvester","doi":"10.1080/01942638.2025.2506067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and relevance of the Youth Engaging Transition (YET) instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this observational study, nine youth (16-21 years) with motor disabilities, their parents, and school physical therapists completed the YET, then triad members gave feedback about the experience (<i>n</i> = 27).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Parents and PTs agreed that both sections (S1: Future Plans and S2: Self-Assessment and Goal Planning) were feasible. Three triads questioned the youth's understanding of the YET. Parents agreed that S1 and S2 were acceptable. Three PTs disagreed that S2 was an appropriate scope/depth. Five triads questioned the YET's length and repetitiveness. Youth and PTs reported that the YET was relevant. Perhaps due to previous transition planning experience, some parents reported not learning new information by completing the YET. Parents' and PTs' ratings were aligned, suggesting a common experience using the YET.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results of this pilot study suggest that the YET has promise as a feasible, acceptable, and relevant transition planning instrument. Larger studies investigating the validity and reliability of the YET should include modifications to the YET, involve other transition team members, and ascertain the team's previous involvement in the planning process. Future YET iterations will include enhanced cognitive accessibility and shortened length.</p>","PeriodicalId":49138,"journal":{"name":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pilot Testing the Youth Engaging Transition: Perspectives of Youth, Parents, and School Physical Therapists.\",\"authors\":\"Hilary D Terhune, Lisa A Chiarello, Robert J Palisano, Lorraine Sylvester\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01942638.2025.2506067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and relevance of the Youth Engaging Transition (YET) instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this observational study, nine youth (16-21 years) with motor disabilities, their parents, and school physical therapists completed the YET, then triad members gave feedback about the experience (<i>n</i> = 27).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Parents and PTs agreed that both sections (S1: Future Plans and S2: Self-Assessment and Goal Planning) were feasible. Three triads questioned the youth's understanding of the YET. Parents agreed that S1 and S2 were acceptable. Three PTs disagreed that S2 was an appropriate scope/depth. Five triads questioned the YET's length and repetitiveness. Youth and PTs reported that the YET was relevant. Perhaps due to previous transition planning experience, some parents reported not learning new information by completing the YET. Parents' and PTs' ratings were aligned, suggesting a common experience using the YET.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results of this pilot study suggest that the YET has promise as a feasible, acceptable, and relevant transition planning instrument. Larger studies investigating the validity and reliability of the YET should include modifications to the YET, involve other transition team members, and ascertain the team's previous involvement in the planning process. Future YET iterations will include enhanced cognitive accessibility and shortened length.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2025.2506067\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2025.2506067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨青年参与转型(YET)工具的可行性、可接受性和相关性。方法:在本观察性研究中,9名运动障碍青少年(16-21岁)及其父母和学校物理治疗师完成了YET,然后黑社会成员对经验进行反馈(n = 27)。结果:家长和学生都认为S1:未来计划和S2:自我评估和目标计划是可行的。三个黑社会质疑年轻人对“YET”的理解。家长们一致认为S1和S2是可以接受的。3名pt不同意S2是合适的范围/深度。五个三合会质疑YET的长度和重复性。青年和PTs报告YET是相关的。也许是由于以前的过渡规划经验,一些家长报告说,没有通过完成YET学习新的信息。家长和学生的评分是一致的,这表明了使用YET的共同经历。结论:本试点研究的结果表明,YET有望成为一种可行、可接受和相关的过渡规划工具。调查YET的有效性和可靠性的大型研究应该包括对YET的修改,涉及其他过渡团队成员,并确定团队先前在计划过程中的参与。未来的YET迭代将包括增强的认知可访问性和缩短的长度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pilot Testing the Youth Engaging Transition: Perspectives of Youth, Parents, and School Physical Therapists.

Aim: To investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and relevance of the Youth Engaging Transition (YET) instrument.

Methods: In this observational study, nine youth (16-21 years) with motor disabilities, their parents, and school physical therapists completed the YET, then triad members gave feedback about the experience (n = 27).

Results: Parents and PTs agreed that both sections (S1: Future Plans and S2: Self-Assessment and Goal Planning) were feasible. Three triads questioned the youth's understanding of the YET. Parents agreed that S1 and S2 were acceptable. Three PTs disagreed that S2 was an appropriate scope/depth. Five triads questioned the YET's length and repetitiveness. Youth and PTs reported that the YET was relevant. Perhaps due to previous transition planning experience, some parents reported not learning new information by completing the YET. Parents' and PTs' ratings were aligned, suggesting a common experience using the YET.

Conclusions: Results of this pilot study suggest that the YET has promise as a feasible, acceptable, and relevant transition planning instrument. Larger studies investigating the validity and reliability of the YET should include modifications to the YET, involve other transition team members, and ascertain the team's previous involvement in the planning process. Future YET iterations will include enhanced cognitive accessibility and shortened length.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: 5 issues per year Abstracted and/or indexed in: AMED; British Library Inside; Child Development Abstracts; CINAHL; Contents Pages in Education; EBSCO; Education Research Abstracts (ERA); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); EMCARE; Excerpta Medica/EMBASE; Family and Society Studies Worldwide; Family Index Database; Google Scholar; HaPI Database; HINARI; Index Copernicus; Intute; JournalSeek; MANTIS; MEDLINE; NewJour; OCLC; OTDBASE; OT SEARCH; Otseeker; PEDro; ProQuest; PsycINFO; PSYCLINE; PubsHub; PubMed; REHABDATA; SCOPUS; SIRC; Social Work Abstracts; Speical Educational Needs Abstracts; SwetsWise; Zetoc (British Library); Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®); Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition; Social Sciences Citation Index®; Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition; Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Current Contents®/Clinical Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信