Programs to Prepare Siblings for Future Roles to Support Their Brother or Sister with a Neurodevelopmental Disability: a Scoping Review
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
Purpose of Review: To identify and map the characteristics and outcomes of programs designed to prepare siblings for their future roles with their sibling with a neurodevelopmental disability. Recent Findings: Existing programs to support siblings of individuals with a neurodevelopmental disability often focus on providing information about neurodevelopmental disabilities, creating a community for siblings to connect with each other, and connecting siblings to resources and services to support them in their roles. Some programs are offered to the whole family with specific sessions for siblings. While these program descriptions are provided in the literature, there is limited understanding about the impacts and outcomes of these programs on siblings of an individual with a neurodevelopmental disability. Summary: Fifty-eight articles (published between 1975 and 2020, with > 50% published since 2010) met the inclusion criteria, representing 54 sibling programs from 11 countries. Extracted data represented 1033 (553 females) sibling participants, between 4 and 67 years old. Twenty-seven programs focused on the outcome of knowledge acquisition for the siblings and thirty-one programs focused on the outcome of empowerment for the siblings to teach skills to their sibling with a neurodevelopmental disability. While there is an increasing number of programs for siblings of individuals with a neurodevelopmental disability in the past decade, there is a lack of siblings as co-developers or facilitators. Future research should consider the various roles that siblings can have in programs to address their needs. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40474-023-00272-w.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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