Barriers to, and facilitators of, education for children with disabilities worldwide: a descriptive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inclusionary ideals regarding the education of children with disabilities (CWD) are articulated in various international human rights treaties and instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights (2006), the Salamanca Statement (1994), and the 2030 agenda of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the latter, the fourth goal explicitly focuses on the removal of barriers to education and supporting access to quality, equity, and inclusion for people with disabilities. Although data regarding access to education among CWD remains scarce, it is well known that rates of their participation in education remain low, particularly among those in LMICs. The research question of this descriptive review is what are the barriers to and facilitators of education for children with disabilities worldwide aged between 6 and 18 years old? Methods: A descriptive review of literature published in English between 2013 and 2021 was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for a scoping review using the following databases: EBSCO, SocINDEX with full text (EBSCO), and ERIC (EBSCO). The search resulted in 7,072 titles and abstracts, which were narrowed down to 1,335 papers for full text review. After data extraction, 54 papers were included in the analysis, with 34 being qualitative, 10 quantitative, and 10 mixed-methods studies. The findings on the facilitators and barriers to education for children with disabilities were analyzed using the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) and Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Framework (1979). Results: Out of the eligible studies included in our research, 40 were conducted in developing countries, while 14 studies conducted on LMICs. Of the five environmental domains in the ICF, the most significant barriers were found to be that of attitudes and services, while technology and effective communication with school staff were found to play a crucial role in facilitating the education process. Applying Bronfenbrenner's framework, barriers occurred at the micro-system (school level), meso-system (parent and teacher communication), exo-system (services), and macro-system (education policy). Only 3 out of the 54 studies included the voices of CWD. Conclusion: Despite documented barriers, facilitators of education for CWD are underexplored, lacking research on their voices. Further investigation is needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".