Stressors and Barriers to Services for Immigrant Fathers Raising Children with Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative review examines research on the experiences of immigrant fathers raising children with developmental disabilities, and considers the findings within the Canadian context. Applying Green, Johnson & Adams’ ( Journal of Chiropractic Medicine , 5(3), 101–117, 2006 ) methodology, a step-by-step process was followed to conduct the review. Four databases (PsychINFO, PubMed, CINAHL and Sociological Abstracts) were used for the search. A total of 39 articles were found to be relevant after applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Also 20 articles from published reference lists and peer-reviewed journal articles, located through Google Scholar, complimented the initial search. Along with House’s ( 1981 ) four dimensions of social support, an intersectional approach underpinned the analysis of findings. Four themes were identified which included: economic challenges, social influences, cultural influences, and the changing gender roles of fathers. Stressors and barriers to accessing health services in the post-migration setting were examined. Based on the review’s findings, the paper recommends 1) addressing income inequality, 2) improving access to health care, social and developmental services, 3) improving cultural-sensitivity of health care, social and developmental services, and 4) increasing participation of fathers. Overall, a more systemic understanding of immigrant fathers’ experiences is called for, taking into account their multiple social locations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".