Being a sibling of a youth with a neurodisability: A qualitative study about the roles and responsibilities during the transition to adulthood
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the transition to adulthood, a common challenge that youth with a neurodisability may experience is learning how to navigate services in the adult care system. During this transition youth may rely on their families, including siblings, for support. However, delineation of sibling roles and responsibilities during this transition period are unclear. This study aims to identify the roles and responsibilities that siblings perceive to have with their sibling with a neurodisability during the transition to adulthood, and describe the decision-making process of how siblings chose these roles. METHODS: In this descriptive qualitative case study, siblings were eligible to participate if they were between 14 to 40 years old, had a sibling between 14 to 21 years with a childhood-onset neurodisability and spoke English. Semi-structured interviews augmented by techniques of photo elicitation and relational maps were conducted. Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to identify sibling roles, as well as the emotional and decision-making process associated with these roles. Our team partnered with siblings with lived experience in all study phases. RESULTS: Nineteen participants (median age = 19 years, range = 14 to 33 years) from 16 unique families were interviewed. Six unique roles were described: friend, role model/mentor, protector, advocate, supporter, or caregiver. The emotions that siblings experienced with each role, also known as emotional responsibility, were categorized into levels of low, medium or high. Siblings also described a four-phase decision-making process for their roles: (1) acquiring knowledge; (2) preparing plans; (3) making adjustments; and (4) seeking support. Intrapersonal characteristics, including personal identity, values and experiences, influenced roles assumed by siblings. CONCLUSIONS: Siblings identified needing support as they process their decisions and emotional responsibility in their roles when their sibling with a neurodisability is transitioning to adulthood. Resources should be developed or further enhanced to support siblings.
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 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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».