Abstract
ABSTRACTAims: This study investigated the experiences and perceptions of parents of children with cerebral palsy (CP) when classifying their children using the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), and the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS). The second aim was to collate parents’ recommendations for service providers on how to interact and communicate with families. Methods: A purposive sample of seven parents participating in the On Track study was recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted orally and were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded openly. A descriptive interpretive approach within a pragmatic perspective was used during analysis. Results: Seven themes encompassing parents’ experiences and perspectives reflect a process of increased understanding when classifying their children, with perceptions of utility evident throughout this process. Six recommendations for service providers emerged, including making the child a priority and being a dependable resource. Conclusions: Knowledge of parents’ experiences when using the GMFCS, MACS, and CFCS can provide useful insight for service providers collaborating with parents to classify function in children with CP. Using the recommendations from these parents can facilitate family–provider collaboration for goal setting and intervention planning.
Highlights
Eight to 10 parents were targeted for recruitment, anticipating saturation of themes with this number based on our previous experiences (Brunton & Bartlett, 2013; Reid et al, 2011) and recommendations in the literature (Morse, 1994)
The interview guide was developed iteratively through a collaborative process among study authors and was sent to ev parent collab orators o f the On Track study team who have children with cerebral palsy (CP). These parent team members provided feedback on clarity, meaningfulness, and appropriateness of the ie questions to maximize acceptability for study participants [Key elements of the interview are w described in Table 3; the complete interview guide is attached as an electronic Appendix]
Limited by a small sample of seven participants all recruited from one rehabilitation centre, saturation of the data was reached during our two-phase analysis
Summary
Participants ie Participants were selected from parents: a) who are participants in the On Track study, b) whose. The interview guide was developed iteratively through a collaborative process among study authors and was sent to ev parent collab orators o f the On Track study team who have children with CP. These parent team members provided feedback on clarity, meaningfulness, and appropriateness of the ie questions to maximize acceptability for study participants [Key elements of the interview are w described in Table 3; the complete interview guide is attached as an electronic Appendix]. The themes and corresponding codes that emerged from ev each portion were discussed among the study authors (NS, DB, and LB) who approved the codes as well as reviewed and refined each theme to produce the final analytic results. A member check with parent participants was conducted for the recommendations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
