Exploring the experiences of siblings of adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) to lose their daily routines and social support, and as a result, many adults with IDD are increasingly reliant on their family caregivers. Siblings often play a crucial support role for their brothers and sisters with IDD. As such, this study aimed to describe the experiences of adult siblings of people with IDD during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Sibling Collaborative worked with researchers to codesign an online survey, completed by 91 people, exploring sibling supports and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey also aimed to identify helpful resources for siblings during this time. RESULTS: The results showed that the majority of siblings are supporting their brother or sister with IDD during the COVID-19 pandemic and are concerned about the health and well-being of their brother/sister. The most common concern related to disruption of their brother's or sister's routine and activities. Although responses of older and younger siblings did not differ from each other, siblings whose brother or sister with IDD lived with family had some unique concerns relative to those whose siblings no longer lived with family. Siblings described how their own self-care and relationships with others, as well as support for their brother/sister, were particularly helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Siblings are providing key support to their brother or sister with IDD during the COVID-19 pandemic, and they too must be supported. Siblings should be included in efforts to disseminate resources targeting people with IDD and their feedback and input must be obtained. It is also important to include sibling mental wellness as caregiver supports are created and implemented. More research is needed to further understand how to 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".