Representations of disability in nursing and healthcare literature: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of an integrative review to explore the way in which disability has been considered in the multidisciplinary health and nursing literature. BACKGROUND: In the multidisciplinary health and nursing literature, two ways are presented in which disability can be understood: the traditional, functional perspective and a more contemporary, social perspective. DATA SOURCES: Computerized databases of the CINAHL, Proquest Nursing and Allied Health Sources, EBSCO and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews Multifile and Cochrane databases were conducted for papers published in English in the period 1963-2007 using the keywords 'models of disability', 'disability and nursing research' and 'theories of disability'. METHODS: An integrative review was performed and, of the 11,578 papers identified, 65 were included. RESULTS: The concept of functional disability refers to an individual who is physically 'disabled' and unable to perform expected roles. The concepts of social stigmatization and normalcy are associated with functional disability. In contrast, social disability concerns functional limitations within an individual's experience of living with disability, examining how socially constructed barriers actually 'disable' people. Conventionally, disability research has been conducted from an etic perspective. Researchers contend that a shift towards an understanding from the emic perspective is needed for disability research to be emancipatory. CONCLUSION: Adoption of a social perspective is necessary to inform an understanding of disability that addresses stigmatization and oppression. Research-informed nursing practice, complemented by supportive health and social policies, could transform the experience of living with disability.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".