Barriers and facilitators to health and social service access and utilization for immigrant parents raising a child with a physical disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the barriers and facilitators to health and social service access and utilization for immigrant parents raising a child with a physical disability, in order to understand their specific needs and experiences of care. Design/methodology/approach – The research involves qualitative interviews with five immigrant parents of four children with a physical disability in two cities in Ontario, Canada. Findings – The findings indicate that divergent perceptions of health care and disability, language, knowledge of service systems, and finances may create obstacles to family-centered and culturally sensitive care. Formal supports, including a third person to navigate the system and services provided in families’ homes, are facilitators that enhance the service care experiences of parents. Practical implications – Service providers need to accommodate and work with immigrant parents who have a child with a disability to overcome the barriers to their care. To enhance service experiences formal support and home services should be provided when possible. Originality/value – There is little research on immigrant families’ experiences with pediatric rehabilitation services and this study contributes to this area. This paper shows that immigrant families of children with disabilities have barriers to service access, utilization, and service care experiences that are similar to those of non-immigrant families. There are few studies on facilitators to service access and utilization and positive experiences; therefore, this study makes a contribution to this area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".