The Impacts of short break provision on families with a disabled child: an international literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are widespread assumptions about the potential impacts of short breaks on family carers and disabled children. This review aims to evaluate the existing international research evidence concerning the impacts of short breaks on families with a disabled child. Electronic literature searches were conducted using ASSIA, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science, and requests for information were sent to selected email lists. Of 60 articles or reports identified for inclusion in the review, the vast majority of studies were cross-sectional, with only eight studies using quasi-experimental pre-post designs or longitudinal designs. Nonetheless, the consistency with which some findings have been reported suggests that short breaks appear to have the potential to positively impact on not only the well-being of carers, but also the children receiving short breaks and their families as a whole. Additional research is warranted in a number of areas. First, research needs to consider the impact of short breaks on fathers. Second, there is a need to consider in more depth how short breaks can impact on the siblings of disabled children. Third, research could consider how best short breaks can be combined with other interventions to maximise the impact for disabled children and their families. Fourth, research needs to look at the longer term impact of short breaks on outcomes for disabled children and their families. What is needed is evidence on what type of short breaks are best for children and families with particular characteristics at particular times during the course of the child's maturation towards adulthood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".