A systematic review of workplace disclosure and accommodation requests among youth and young adults with disabilities
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review is to critically appraise the literature on disability disclosure and workplace accommodations for youth and young adults with disabilities. METHODS: Systematic searches of nine international databases identified 27 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. These studies were analyzed with respect to the characteristics of the participants, methodology, results of the studies and the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Among the 27 studies, 18,419 participants (aged 14-33, mean 23.9 years) were represented across seven countries. Barriers to disability disclosure and requests for workplace accommodations were found at the individual (i.e., disability type, severity, poor self-concept, and advocacy skills), employment (i.e., type of industry, and working conditions, lack of supports), and societal levels (i.e., stigma/discrimination). Facilitators of disability disclosure included individual factors (i.e., knowledge of supports and workplace rights, self-advocacy skills), employment (i.e., training/supports, effective communication with employers, realizing the benefits of accommodations), and societal factors (i.e., positive attitudes toward people with disabilities). There was little consensus on the processes and timing of how disability should be discussed in the workplace among youth with disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the complexities of disability disclosure for youth with disabilities. More studies are needed to explore issues of workplace disclosure and accommodations for young people to improve disclosure strategies and the process of providing appropriate accommodations. Implications for Rehabilitation Clinicians, educators, and parents should support youth to become self-aware and build self-advocacy skills so they can make an informed decision about how and when to disclose their condition to employers. Clinicians, educators, and employers should help youth with disabilities to understand the benefits of disclosing their disability, and educate them on the supports available so they can remain healthy and productive in the workplace. Clinicians should advocate for employers to create a positive and supportive environment where youth feel comfortable disclosing their condition.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle