Digital inclusion and participation of people with intellectual disabilities during <scp>COVID</scp>‐19: A rapid review and international bricolage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic has meant a rapid transfer of everyday activities to the online world. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have become more embedded than ever in people's lives. This investigation addresses how this change has affected the lives of people with intellectual disabilities (ID). A two‐step design was used. A rapid review was conducted on empirical studies published between January 2019 and June 2021. Search terms related to ID, ICT use and COVID‐19. A qualitative international bricolage was also conducted corresponding to author nationalities. Data gathered from the review and bricolage were analysed separately using thematic analysis and relationally synthesised. Digital solutions to provide access to COVID‐19 information and guidance seemed inadequate but were seldom empirically studied. Digital poverty, literacy and exclusion remain significant issues for people with ID internationally. People and their carers experienced reduced and removed service provision, loneliness and impoverished daily lives during the pandemic; amelioration of which was facilitated by digital solutions. One solution often used was videoconferencing. Prior experience of digital participation, adequate finances, connection, support and digital literacy mentoring for both people with ID and those providing services and support facilitated digital inclusion. Digital exclusion during COVID‐19 was exacerbated by sociopolitical, structural, individual and support‐related barriers. Although awareness of digital exclusion appears to have been raised, the extent to which this has led to action and change remains unclear. Despite digital exclusion and digital participation benefitting continuation of life, social and emotional well‐being and autonomy, COVID‐19 has not provided the impetus to eradicate digital poverty for people with ID. Governmental support, digital education, creativity and problem solving are required to enable people with ID the human right to be included in the digital world at this essential time and into the future.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".