Down syndrome caregivers' support needs: a mixed‐method participatory approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to explore the support needs of caregivers of children with Down syndrome from their perspective using a mixed-method participatory research approach. METHODS: Concept mapping methodology was used to obtain caregiver perspectives. Twenty-one caregivers answered the question 'Are parents of individuals with Down syndrome supported, why or why not?' Caregivers were involved in the analysis of the data through concept mapping procedures. RESULTS: Sorted data were analysed with multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Participants generated eight thematic clusters representing the support needs of caregivers of children with Down syndrome. The themes included online and social support, support system gaps, areas where support is lacking, Down syndrome community support, financial support, advocacy needs, educational support and concerns for community programming. CONCLUSIONS: Themes align with previous research on support needs of parents of children with developmental disabilities. The study highlights the need for more local organisations to offer support that is affordable and accessible for families. Results will support future programme planning for services for individuals caring for those with Down syndrome.
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 | 0.054 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".