ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Acceptability of telehealth-delivered Alberta Infant Motor Scale for Australian parents: A mixed-methods analysis.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acceptability of telehealth-delivered Alberta Infant Motor Scale for Australian parents: A mixed-methods analysis.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo describe the factors shaping Australian parents' acceptability of synchronous telehealth delivery of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), an infant gross motor assessment.
methodA mixed-methods approach was used to describe the experiences of parents whose infants received telehealth and face-to-face AIMS assessments. A quantitative component used questionnaire responses (n = 102) and a qualitative component involved semi-structured interviews (n = 13). Descriptive statistics, deductive content analysis (questionnaire data), and inductive content analysis (interview data) were used for analysis.
resultsMost parents (89%) reported telehealth was an acceptable way to complete the AIMS assessment. Most (97%) would accept a telehealth appointment if a face-to-face assessment was not available. Four categories were identified from interview data that influenced parents' perceptions of telehealth: (1) visibility of the child; (2) accuracy of representation; (3) trust in the unfamiliar; and (4) the parental experience.
interpretationTelehealth delivery of the AIMS is acceptable to Australian parents. However, around half of participants preferred face-to-face assessment. Findings suggest families be provided with choice, with clinicians supporting parents to understand the benefits and challenges of each modality, considering families' circumstances, preferences, capabilities, and access to technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.