Perceptions of disability among mothers of children with disability in Bangladesh: Implications for rehabilitation service delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eighty-five percent of children with disabilities (CWD) live in developing countries, and <5% receive rehabilitation services. PURPOSE: To describe perceptions of disability among mothers of CWD in Bangladesh, and to explore how these perceptions influence the care sought for their CWD. METHODS. Descriptive qualitative research methods were employed. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers of CWD receiving services at a large pediatric rehabilitation facility in Bangladesh. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were coded and analyzed to identify themes. RESULTS: Three primary categories of themes emerged: (1) mothers' perceptions of disability; (2) perceptions of treatment; and (3) expectations for the future of their CWD. The findings suggest that the family members, healthcare providers, and the rehabilitation setting have a considerable influence on mothers' perceptions. Study participants had adopted a biomedical understanding of disability and treatment, but reported that family elders continued to believe strongly in traditional explanations creating conflict regarding appropriate treatment approaches. Participants suggested that education and peer support networks provided in the rehabilitation setting played (or could play) a critical role in addressing these conflicts. CONCLUSION: Understanding mothers' perceptions of disability and treatment, and the myriad of factors that influence those perceptions, provides valuable knowledge to assist in planning and delivery of family centered rehabilitation services for CWD. Rehabilitation has a central role to play in assisting mothers' understanding of the nature of their children's disabilities and how they can be managed. Ultimately, such an understanding may translate into improved social and educational opportunities for CWD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".