Use of family disability service by families with young children with disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aim To investigate which families with young children with disabilities used disability services and when they used services to inform policy on service delivery. Method We used linked administrative data from different ministries in Alberta to describe families’ use of disability services when their children were between the ages of 3 and 8 years old. Disability was investigated on the basis of the presence of a severe special education code for children, and level of special education code. The outcome was the use of family disability services. Results Of 31 346 children, 24 761 (79.0%) had no special education code, 3982 (12.7%) had a mild special education code, and 2603 (8.3%) had a severe special education code. Level of special education code was associated with child characteristics and service use. Children with severe special education codes generally were more likely to report service use and have poor outcomes than those with less severe codes. Of note, 26% of children with severe special education codes used family disability services. In addition, among children with severe special education codes, many years of severe coding (compared with fewer years) had the strongest association with family disability service use (prevalence ratio 5.50; 95% confidence interval 4.10–7.37). Associations with family disability service use were seen with mental health, health care, and educational achievement. Interactions between child characteristics and service use were observed. Interpretation This study provides evidence that families were more likely to use disability services when they were involved with other services, and that use interacts with various factors. The findings highlight the importance of considering service eligibility, referral, and integration. What this paper adds Children with severe special education codes were more likely to use services than those with less severe codes. They were also more likely to have poor outcomes than those with less severe codes. Fewer families used disability services early (age 3y) compared with later on. Families’ use of disability services corresponded with other service use. The study elucidated potential barriers and facilitators to disability service use.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».