MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944608842 · doi:10.1111/jppi.12068

System‐Wide Information About Family Carers of Adults With Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities—A Scoping Review of the Literature

2014· article· en· W1944608842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Mental healthPsychologyDemographicsIntellectual disabilityPerceptionApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Family carers play an important role supporting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities ( I/DD ) into adulthood. Funders of services often desire this ongoing involvement by family members yet they rarely collect data about family carers. As policy makers and planners are increasingly recognizing the need for information related to indicators of system performance, a scoping review was conducted to identify system‐wide information needed about family carers of adults with I/DD that would help improve the quality of service provided. A final review of 87 research articles was organized in terms of service use, service need, and permanency planning by family carers of adults with I/DD . Service use and need were associated with the presence of challenging behaviors among individuals with I/DD as well as carer demographics and health status. In addition, carers' subjective view of how well they think they can provide for their child in the future was an important determining factor of service need. Permanency planning was associated with child level of functioning as well as parent income, social support, and compound caregiving demands. Studies highlighted the importance of measuring family carers' mental and physical health and their perceptions of the adequacy of services received. Considered also were methodological limitations, highlighting considerations for future system monitoring. Methodological limitations of studies reviewed include reliance on cross‐sectional data, samples consisting of families already receiving at least some services, and little information about the process of seeking and obtaining services. Areas to target in future system monitoring include information on who needs services, what services are needed, families' perceptions of the caregiving experience and families' experiences waiting for services over time. Understanding the experiences of family carers as seekers of formal services can help inform policy and practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.291
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.291
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it