Social Inclusion in Group Homes: Determining Facilitators and Barriers to Inclusion for People with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 Social inclusion is central to positive life experiences for those with and without intellectual disabilities (ID). Unfortunately, those with ID experience high levels of social isolation. As group homes, one of the most common forms of community living, aim to provide an equitable quality of life for adults with disabilities, significant responsibility of promoting social inclusion falls to them. The intention of this review is to identify the facilitators and barriers associated with social inclusion for people with ID living in group homes to develop an evaluation framework. Five databases were searched, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to narrow the results to 21 articles. Four main categories of barriers and facilitators to inclusion became apparent in the literature: (1) Home characteristics and social inclusion, (2) Staff characteristics and social inclusion, (3) Organizational/Leadership characteristics and social inclusion, and (4) Resident characteristics and social inclusion. While the findings from these articles have been divided into four broad categories, it is acknowledged the identified barriers and facilitators are varied and highlight the important role of the group home and surrounding communities in promoting social inclusion of their residents. This review also highlights a gap in current literature surrounding social inclusion for those with ID. Overall, more emphasis on understanding the various pathways to achieving social inclusion from group home residents with ID could contribute to the creation of effective policy and practices.
 
 
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".