Parenting with a physical disability and cognitive impairments: a scoping review of the needs expressed by parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parents, whose daily activities are limited by a disability, account for 6.2% of the American population with minor children. Considering the prevailing knowledge gaps concerning parents with a physical disability and cognitive impairments, there is an urgency to instigate an investigation of their unmet needs. In this study, we will examine the scope of literature relating to the specific needs of parents with a physical disability and cognitive impairments in early child rearing occupations. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted by two independent raters in four databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO). Data were extracted and analyzed numerically and thematically using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included for review representing the needs of 113 parents. Emerging needs related to 15 ICF categories and three corresponding themes: parents' (1) needs when engaging with their young children, (2) personal needs in and outside the home, and (3) needs navigating the health system. CONCLUSIONS: The unmet needs of parents with a physical disability and cognitive impairments legitimize the development of clinical services for this population. Future research should focus on developing assessments and interventions specific to parental needs in child rearing occupations.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAdults with a physical disability and cognitive impairments who parent young children have unmet needs with regards to engaging in child rearing, meeting their personal needs, and navigating the health system.Studies reporting on the impact of impairments on parenting mostly focus on elucidating physical impairments and less so cognitive impairments.Developing a more comprehensive understanding of parental needs will inform further development of targeted assessments and interventions for parents with a physical disability and cognitive impairments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".