Experiences of refugee children living with disabilities: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Refugees living with disabilities are among the most vulnerable, isolated and marginalized populations, and, of this group, children are particularly vulnerable. The purpose of this study is to identify current knowledge and research gaps specific to the experiences of refugee families who have children with disabilities. The authors assess the quality of evidence and describe the theoretical underpinnings of research that focuses on refugee families who have children with disabilities. Design/methodology/approach The authors searched nine electronic databases from database inception for English language, peer-reviewed publications. The authors identified themes from the included studies. Findings The authors identified 10 studies that fit their inclusion criteria and shown key findings in the form of six themes. Families who have children with disabilities experience structural barriers; their experiences are impacted by family factors and the degree and kind of support received, as well as the knowledge of parents about their rights. Gender differences made visible the precarious situations experienced by girls with disabilities. Gaps in educational standards and the capacity of schools, particularly in refugee camps, were highlighted. Research limitations/implications The authors show that there is a lack of evidence-based research focusing on refugee children’s own experiences of living with disabilities. Children’s experiences that were visible were, for the most part, attended to through other’s accounts of their experiences. Many studies that the authors found (the current knowledge to date) describe children with disabilities through third-party accounts, including parents, caregivers and those who provided services to this population. There is an urgent need to explore the experiences of children who have disabilities and are displaced from their home country. Originality/value This systematic review focuses on refugee children experiences that has not been conducted before and identifies the research gaps for this group. Attention to how disabilities are understood philosophically and who are defined as refugees are needed in order for the research to accrue in ways that build a consistent body of literature. Without some consistency, it is not possible for studies to build on one another.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".