Use of family disability service by families with young children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To investigate which families with young children with disabilities used disability services and when they used services to inform policy on service delivery. Method We used linked administrative data from different ministries in Alberta to describe families’ use of disability services when their children were between the ages of 3 and 8 years old. Disability was investigated on the basis of the presence of a severe special education code for children, and level of special education code. The outcome was the use of family disability services. Results Of 31 346 children, 24 761 (79.0%) had no special education code, 3982 (12.7%) had a mild special education code, and 2603 (8.3%) had a severe special education code. Level of special education code was associated with child characteristics and service use. Children with severe special education codes generally were more likely to report service use and have poor outcomes than those with less severe codes. Of note, 26% of children with severe special education codes used family disability services. In addition, among children with severe special education codes, many years of severe coding (compared with fewer years) had the strongest association with family disability service use (prevalence ratio 5.50; 95% confidence interval 4.10–7.37). Associations with family disability service use were seen with mental health, health care, and educational achievement. Interactions between child characteristics and service use were observed. Interpretation This study provides evidence that families were more likely to use disability services when they were involved with other services, and that use interacts with various factors. The findings highlight the importance of considering service eligibility, referral, and integration. What this paper adds Children with severe special education codes were more likely to use services than those with less severe codes. They were also more likely to have poor outcomes than those with less severe codes. Fewer families used disability services early (age 3y) compared with later on. Families’ use of disability services corresponded with other service use. The study elucidated potential barriers and facilitators to disability service use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".