Exploring the lived experiences of ethnic minority youth with disabilities: a systematic review and meta synthesis of qualitative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Racial and ethnic minority youth with disabilities often encounter more challenges and poorer health, social and vocational outcomes compared to white youth and yet, relatively little is known about their lived experiences. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of ethnic minority youth and young adults with disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative data with eight international databases assessed by four reviewers. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, which involved 373 youth and young adults, across four countries over a 20-year period. We identified the following themes: (1) accessing and navigating services (i.e., environmental barriers; lack of supports, resources and information); (2) perceptions of disability (i.e., cultural adjustment and tensions between cultures; differing priorities for independence); (3) systemic factors (i.e., language and communication; stigma, discrimination and racism); (4) coping (i.e., reframing; and family involvement and support); and (5) intersectionality (i.e., disability, race and ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight how racial and ethnic minority youth with disabilities encounter many challenges in dealing with their condition and the urgent need for further research to develop a deeper understanding of their needs so that clinicians and service providers can enhance supports.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRacial and ethnic minority youth with disabilities encounter different challenges than other youth, such as cultural adjustment, racism and culturally inappropriate services.Clinicians and service providers should be cognizant that ethnic minority youth may need different supports and resources as they grapple with tensions between cultures.Clinicians, educators and service providers should consider the complexity of how disability interacts with many other factors, such as race, ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status.
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 | 0.046 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".