MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892974849 · doi:10.1111/cch.12621

Recommended practices to organize and deliver school‐based services for children with disabilities: A scoping review

2018· review· en· W2892974849 on OpenAlexafffund
Dana Anaby, Wenonah Campbell, Cheryl Missiuna, Steven R. Shaw, Sheila Bennett, Sitara Khan, Stéphanie Tremblay, Jean‐Claude Kalubi‐Lukusa, Chantal Camden

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeBrock UniversityMcMaster UniversityMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inclusive educational environments can have a positive effect on the general health and well-being of children with disabilities. However, their level of academic success and participation remains limited. Considering scarce resources and high needs, identifying efficient methods for providing interdisciplinary services is critical. This scoping review, therefore, aims to (a) synthesize current evidence about principles for organizing and delivering interdisciplinary school-based support services for students with disabilities and (b) ascertain useful strategies for implementation of principles in the school setting. METHODS: Scholarly and grey literature in rehabilitation and education were reviewed collaboratively with school-based stakeholders. A search of five databases identified 13,141 references and resulted in 56 relevant articles published from 1998 to 2017. Information (e.g., principles to organize services and strategies for implementation) was extracted, and thematic analysis was used to summarize findings. RESULTS: Within the documents retained, 65% were scientific and 35% were grey. Services primarily targeted students with behavioral issues, followed by those with cognitive and learning disabilities with a focus on improving social-emotional functioning and academic performance. Thematic analysis revealed 10 common principles to guide service organization (e.g., collaborative interventions and support for teachers) and seven implementation strategies (e.g., training and coordination) for employing these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can guide rehabilitation professionals, educators, and policy makers in restructuring well-coordinated collaborative services involving training and capacity-building of school-based service providers. Such knowledge can contribute to the improved provision of care and, consequently, promote children's school participation and inclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0340.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207