Needs of families of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Addis Ababa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family support is an essential component of caring for children with intellectual or developmental disability (IDD), however, specific family support needs in developing countries, such as Ethiopia, have received minimal attention in the literature to date. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to understand the specific disability-related support needs of families with children with IDD in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We answered the following questions: (1) How do family members of children with IDD in the Mekaneyesus Centre in Addis Ababa currently meet their disability-related support needs?; (2) what are these family members' most pressing unmet disability-related needs? and (3) how do family members perceive their capacity to meet their support needs? METHOD: This study drew from an exploratory qualitative descriptive approach with 16 family members of children with IDD, recruited from a centre for children with IDD. We conducted semi-structured interviews in Amharic. We transcribed and translated interviews into English and guided by a conceptual framework for family support from Kyzar et al. (2012), we thematically analysed the data. RESULTS: Participants identified instrumental and emotional needs to be most prominent, with additional discussion around various physical and informational needs. Participants identified childcare as the most significant unmet need, which resulted in the loss of various important life roles. The participants discussed major sources of support coming from spirituality, family members and community. Stigma emerged as a critical family support theme external to the Kyzar et al. (2012) classifications of family support. CONCLUSION: Although family members are adapting and responding to meet their needs in the best way they can, additional support, particularly related to childcare and future planning, is essential.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".