Resilience and adolescence-transition in youth with developmental disabilities and their families: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs, e.g., cerebral palsy) and their caregivers face lifelong and impactful challenges, particularly during life-transition periods such as adolescence. One's resilience emerges as an essential ability to navigate this vulnerable phase. Resilience is a complex concept that embeds multiple factors on various levels. Little is known about what resilience factors are pivotal in youth with NDDs and their families as they transition into adolescence and how these are addressed as part of existing targeted interventions. Objectives: This review explored the concept of resilience in youth with NDDs and their families. Specific aims included describing salient resilience factors in adolescents with NDDs and their families and to describe how resilience is addressed as part of targeted interventions. Methods: = 46 factors), results' collating with numerical and inductive content analysis, and consultation with three key stakeholders. Results: = 6 intervention) studies. Findings revealed that resilience in this context is closely linked to more than forty factors across four levels (individual; family; school/peers; and community). Pivotal factors include social and emotional competence, optimism, and family/peer relationships. While existing interventions targeting resilience show promising results, few programs are available and generalizable to different NDDs. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of addressing resilience factors that are not targeted in existing interventions: caregivers' self-efficacy and self-esteem, as well as youth's and caregiver's confidence. Preferences for and advantages of online delivery for support programs and individual/group features also emerged. Conclusion: The review emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to support youth with NDDs and their families during adolescence transition. To enhance their resilience, recognizing caregivers' roles, customizing interventions, and exploring new implementation formats are avenues that align with the current evidence and opportunities for practical development in this field.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".