‘Impairments of the brain’: Global South perspectives on childhood neurodevelopmental disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word 'disability' does not exist in most African languages. There are words for impairments that describe the 'missing' or affected body parts, but no specific words to characterize, for instance, neurodevelopmental conditions. In this narrative review we focus on the different interpretations of neurodevelopmental conditions in Uganda and discuss the importance of cultural concepts and the intersectionality of family-centred care, poverty, and neocolonialism when working with children with 'impairments of the brain'. We suggest that these concepts should be taken into consideration in health care service provision and public health awareness campaigns, and the need to rethink how disabled children can be included in a 'global' health approach. We explain how applying biomedical categories used in the Global North to diagnose children is only ethical if this information will benefit the child and is accompanied by supportive actions that are relevant to the child and family setting. We argue for the enhancement of community-based structures of belonging and interdependence that are already in place and strengthening of family and community networks to continue the care and co-responsibility for children with 'impairments of the brain'. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Cultural concepts, family-centred care, poverty, and neocolonialism are key in defining disability in the Global South. Diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental condition should be accompanied by supportive actions relevant to the child's setting. Interventions need to build on family and community-based structures of belonging and interdependence. Health care services and public health awareness campaigns should be made culturally relevant.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".