Barriers and facilitators to obtaining accessible housing among children, youth and young adults with disabilities and their families: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accessible housing is a fundamental human right and yet many children and youth with disabilities live in inaccessible, insecure, unaffordable and poor quality housing. The aim of our study was to understand the barriers and facilitators to obtaining accessible housing among children, youth and young adults with disabilities and their families. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review involving seven international literature databases from 2000 to 2022 that identified 38 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The reviewed studies involved 10 countries over a 22-year period. Our review emphasized the following key trends: (1) barriers to obtaining accessible homes (i.e. common types of accessibility barriers, rates of inaccessible housing, factors affecting home accessibility), and negative impacts of inaccessible housing; and (2) rates and facilitators to obtaining accessible housing (i.e., common types of home modifications, enablers of home modifications) and positive impacts of accessible housing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the barriers and enablers of obtaining accessible housing among children, youth and young adults with disabilities and their families and the critical need to support them in securing appropriate housing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".