Disability community and mental health among college students with physical disabilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: College students with physical disabilities are often at a higher risk for mental health problems. In addition, some universities have created disability community spaces, but it is not known whether these spaces are associated with social support or increased mental health and well-being among students who use them. This study investigated differences in feelings of perceived social support, depressive symptomatology, and well-being between students with physical disabilities who live in general student housing and students with physical disabilities who live in a disability community. Research Methods/Design: A mixed-methods online survey was used to collect data from students with physical disabilities who lived in a disability community and from those who did not. Of the participants, 27 college students self-identified as having a physical disability (n = 27), 11 participants lived in the disability community (n = 11), and 16 did not (n = 16). RESULTS: The quantitative results indicated statistically significant differences between the two groups on all three measures. The open-ended responses revealed that those who lived in the disability community setting felt more connected to other students with physical disabilities. However, the results also showed that many students with physical disabilities felt socially disconnected for a myriad of reasons. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that living in a disability community may be associated with feeling socially supported and improved mental health outcomes among college students with physical disabilities. Universities and other stakeholders should consider implementing programs to foster disability community among students with physical disabilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".