Ableism among children and youth with acquired brain injury and their caregivers: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children and youth with acquired brain injury (ABI) experience persistent discrimination and ableism. The purpose of this systematic review was to understand the experiences and impact of ableism among children and youth with ABI. METHOD: Six international databases were systematically searched for articles from 2002-2022. Studies were screened independently by four researchers who performed the data extraction. Study quality was appraised using the Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research. RESULTS: Of the 2085 studies identified in the search, 15 met the inclusion criteria, which involved 1442 children and youth with brain injuries or caregivers representing them. Studies in the review showed the following key trends: (1) incidence of ableism among children and youth with ABI; (2) experiences of ableism at the individual and institutional levels, (3) impact of ableism (i.e., mental health, social relationships, quality of life) and (4) coping strategies (i.e., resources, supports). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal the alarming incidence of ableism among youth with ABI. Therefore, there is a critical need for more research to explore youth's lived experiences of ableism, especially from their perspectives along with the co-development of solutions to help enhance their social inclusion and well-being.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".