Support needs of Canadian adult siblings of brothers and sisters with intellectual/developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background It is becoming more common for siblings to fulfill a caregiving role for their brother or sister, particularly because people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) are often living longer and outliving their parents. However, most of what we know about siblings of people with IDD is based on research with children, and limited studies on the adult sibling experiences in Canada have been published. To meet the support needs of Canadian adult siblings, “The Sibling Collaborative”, a grass‐roots initiative, conducted a needs assessment. Specific Aims The purpose of this study was to better understand the current challenges siblings experience and how requested resources may differ across three age groups: adults between the ages of 20 and 29 years, 30 to 49 years, and 50 years of age and older. Method A total of 260 siblings of individuals with IDD from across Ontario completed an online survey. Findings Siblings endorsed a relatively low rating of intensity of support that they provided for their brothers or sisters with IDD at the time of survey completion; however, the majority indicated that they intended to take a greater caregiving role in the future. Ratings of support differed by sibling age groups, as did challenges related to supporting brothers or sisters with IDD. Overall, participants reported a range of desired resources and preferred methods of accessing resources. Discussion Siblings' caregiving relationships with their brothers and sisters with IDD differed across age groups. Results from the current study indicate different supports may be needed for different age groups. As policies around the world continue to encourage continued family involvement in caregiving for adults with IDD, it is important to understand how systems can better support sibling caregivers.
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 | 0.005 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".