MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387976958 · doi:10.3390/ijerph20216983

Changing Directions and Expanding Horizons: Moving towards More Inclusive Healthcare for Parents of Children with Developmental Disabilities

2023· article· en· W4387976958 on OpenAlexaff
Monika Novak‐Pavlic, Peter Rosenbaum, Briano Di Rezze

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService delivery frameworkService (business)Inclusion (mineral)PsychologyHealth careFamily centered careService providerSpecial needsHealth professionalsIntersectionalityNursingDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologySocial psychologyBusinessPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family-centred service (FCS) acknowledges the importance of family engagement in therapeutic processes and focuses on the needs of all family members. This way of thinking and practicing is becoming increasingly recognized as an optimal care delivery model for families of children with developmental disabilities (DDs). However, in most places, disability services are oftentimes 'child-centric', wherein family members are seen only as partners in therapy or care delivery, while their own needs are not addressed. This arises from the lack of awareness of complex and highly individual family needs by professionals with whom they interact, but also from a significant lack of service infrastructure oriented towards parent-specific needs in existing service delivery models. This concept paper highlights the known challenges associated with parenting a child with a DD and discusses the intersectionality of factors impacting parental health and well-being, with a goal of promoting more equitable, holistic, and inclusive healthcare for all family members of children with DDs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207