Programmes to prepare siblings for future roles to support their brother or sister with a neurodisability: protocol of a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Siblings share a lifelong bond in their relationship, and they may choose to provide support to their brother or sister with a neurodisability. Previous reviews summarised programmes that only focused on the behavioural, emotional and psychological outcomes of the siblings. There is a need to synthesise existing evidence and enhance our understanding about programmes for siblings to acquire knowledge, develop skills and become empowered that can help them to provide support to their brother or sister with a neurodisability. The objective of this review is to identify and map the characteristics and outcomes of programmes designed to prepare siblings in their future roles to support their brother or sister with a neurodisability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used by partnering with the Sibling Youth Advisory Council comprised of siblings of individuals with a disability throughout all review phases. Databases to be searched include PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Sociological Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid) and SPORTDiscus, from date of inception to November 2020. Studies of programmes designed for siblings of individuals with neurodisabilities, with no exclusion on the age of siblings or context, and published in English will be included. Extracted data will include details of programme structure and content, eligibility criteria and participants, context, study methods and outcomes. A summary of the results will be presented in a tabular form to provide an overview of the programmes with an accompanying narrative summary to address the research questions of this review. DISSEMINATION: Findings from this review will be shared using dissemination strategies in partnership with the Sibling Youth Advisory Council. We will share the findings with key stakeholders such as healthcare providers, researchers, and patient and family advocacy groups.
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 | 0.091 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.011 |
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".