A realist review of programs for siblings of children who have an intellectual/developmental disability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Our purpose is to answer the following question: What mechanisms or components of programs, groups, or interventions improve psychological and social aspects of the lives of siblings of children who have intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD)? Secondly, using a realist review format, we develop program theories and recommendations that can guide current and future sibling support programs. Background There is evidence that having a sibling with IDD can affect the physical health, behavior, and mental health of siblings who do not have IDD. As a result, support programs have been developed for these nondisabled siblings. Methods We conducted a realist review of 31 studies assessing support programs for siblings of children with IDD. Gray literature was also included. Applying the realist paradigm, we identified program contexts, mechanisms that promote program effectiveness, and the outcomes of the programs. Results We found that contextual information was often lacking in the research and no studies examined the effectiveness of individual program components. However, the mechanisms of validation of feelings and experiences, time with parents, and respite were observed as beneficial for the siblings. From our analysis and using a realist review paradigm, we developed four program theories that reflect the siblings' experiences in the various programs. Conclusion The four program theories derived from this realist review can be summarized as “I am not the only one,” “I have needs too,” “I need my parents' attention,” and “I need a break.” Implications Based upon the four theories, we offer recommendations to guide program development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it