Remote support for individuals with intellectual disabilities living independently: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this project was to conduct a scoping review to understand factors related to remote support provision among individuals with intellectual disabilities in independent living. Methods: A systematic search was employed among eight large databases, yielding 207 articles. Following a two-phase screening process, 22 articles were included in this review. Data were charted and summarized according to types of remote support, outcomes, best practices, barriers and facilitators, and ethical considerations. Results: Overall, remote support provision was associated with positive outcomes (e.g. academic skills). Most studies used mobile apps or video self-modeling/prompting. Training for support workers facilitates use, and privacy concerns should be addressed among organizations. Discussion: Given the shift to online technology over the Covid-19 pandemic, remote support can complement in-person support when used skillfully and appropriately. Importantly, remote support should be individualized for each person. Greater research is needed using diverse study designs, assessing perceptions of support providers, and on remote support that enables live communication between users and providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".