MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281757728 · doi:10.1177/17446295221104623

Examining the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Service Providers Working with Children and Youth with Neuro-developmental Disabilities and their Families: Results of a Focus Group Study

2022· article· en· W4281757728 on OpenAlexafffund
David Nicholas, Wendy Mitchell, Jill Ciesielski, Arisha Khan, Lucyna Lach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disabilities · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersKids Brain Health NetworkAzrieli Foundation
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicFocus groupService providerPsychology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakService (business)Developmental psychologyGerontologyMedicineSociologyBusinessVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed unprecedented service interruptions in many sectors including services for children and youth with neuro-developmental disabilities (NDD). We examined the experiences of service providers as they supported this population during the pandemic. Five focus groups were convened with 24 service providers offering support to children/youth with NDD and their families. Results highlight substantial service changes and challenges, as observed by service providers. Service closures and program delivery modification resulted in the rapid adoption of virtual services and reduced program delivery. Service providers have faced heightened workloads, personal weariness and 'burn out', and new levels of conflict at work, yet with little opportunity and support for self-care. Beyond challenges, new learning and growth have emerged, with heightened collaboration amongst organizations. Strains in service delivery during the pandemic have exposed programming and systems gaps, for which proactive capacity building is warranted and recommended.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207