MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390917557 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1294849

Barriers to, and facilitators of, education for children with disabilities worldwide: a descriptive review

2024· review· en· W4390917557 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesInclusion (mineral)Equity (law)Medical educationDescriptive statisticsPolitical scienceData extractionInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychologyConventionMedicineMEDLINERehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.333 · 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