MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995466677 · doi:10.12927/whp.2013.21790

Exploring the Meaning of Childhood Disability: Perceptions of Disability among Mothers of Children with Disabilities (CWD) in Kuwait

2010· article· en· W1995466677 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sudha R. Raman, Shilpa Mandoda, Laila Hussain, Niamh Foley, Elham Hamdan, Michel D. Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld health & population · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPerceptionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyExploratory researchFatalismMeaning (existential)Coping (psychology)MedicineDevelopmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Clinical psychologyNursingPsychotherapistPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this exploratory research was to examine perceptions of mothers with children with disabilities (CWD) in Kuwait in order to understand the meaning of disability from their perspective and to explore the extent to which such perceptions influence rehabilitative services that their children receive. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers of CWD receiving services at a large pediatric facility in Kuwait. Four themes emerged from the interviews: (1) mother's perceptions of disability, (2) mother's extended caregiver role, (3) religious beliefs as a coping strategy, and (4) perception of rehabilitation services. Our findings suggest that despite a traditional acceptance of disability as divine intervention or a challenge sent to them by God, mothers were motivated to maximize rehabilitation services in order to improve the functional capacity of their children. Kuwaiti mothers may hold both the fatalistic view of disability, and the belief that the course of disability can be altered through a rehabilitative intervention, in tension. An appreciation of this phenomenon might move toward a rehabilitation delivery model that integrates and harmonizes such beliefs.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld health & populationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207