Sleep Outcomes for Parents of Children With Neurodevelopmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents of children with Neurodevelopmental Disabilities (NDDs) are at risk of sleep loss. No comprehensive systematic reviews examining parental sleep outcomes in caregivers of children with NDDs exist. A systematic search was conducted between June and August 2016 examining sleep quantity, quality, sleepiness, and fatigue outcomes of caregivers of children with NDDs. Of 7,534 citations retrieved, 33 met eligibility criteria. Most studies ( n = 27) were cross-sectional, included a range of NDDs and were of "poor" ( n = 14) or "fair" ( n = 17) quality. Few good quality studies compared objectively measured sleep in parents of children with NDDs with parents with typically developing children. Parents of children with NDDs consistently reported significantly poorer subjective sleep quality. There is a paucity of good quality comparative studies, using well-validated measures, examining parental sleep outcomes. Future research should aim to fill this gap, providing greater insight to parents' experiences, and identifying targets for intervention design and evaluation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".