Service providers’ perspectives in providing services to children with disabilities and their families in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study seeks to gain an understanding of access to rehabilitation services and disability allowances for children with disabilities and their families from the perspectives of service providers. METHOD: We interviewed 21 service providers in Bangladesh and used thematic analysis to analyze data. RESULTS: Participants reported their perspectives on two major themes: (a) challenges in providing services to children with disabilities (e.g., limited availability of services and favouritism); and (b) facilitators in providing services to children with disabilities (e.g., cooperation from community leaders and satisfaction). CONCLUSION: Providers' perspectives revealed unique insights that might be interesting for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. The findings reinforce the need to consider the availability of rehabilitation professionals and disability allowances to meet the greatest needs of children with disabilities and their families in Bangladesh. The findings also call for further research on policymakers' perspectives on addressing the systemic issues encountered by providers in providing support to children with disabilities and their families in Bangladesh.Implications for RehabilitationRehabilitation services are critical for children with disabilities to achieve optimal health, wellbeing and human rightsThe government of Bangladesh has increased rehabilitation services for children with disabilities, but there is a need for further investment to increase rehabilitation workforceIt is important to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of disability-specific programs to ensure equitable access to services for children with disabilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".