MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392508023 · doi:10.1111/cch.13241

Being a sibling of a youth with a neurodisability: A qualitative study about the roles and responsibilities during the transition to adulthood

2024· article· en· W4392508023 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda Nguyen, Susan M. Jack, Hanae Davis, Samantha Bellefeuille, Dana Arafeh, Briano Di Rezze, Marjolijn Ketelaar, Jan Willem Gorter

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster UniversityImpactMcMaster University Medical CentreMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSiblingPsychologyThematic analysisIntrapersonal communicationSibling relationshipDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchReflexivityInterpretative phenomenological analysisTransition (genetics)Social psychologyInterpersonal communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During the transition to adulthood, a common challenge that youth with a neurodisability may experience is learning how to navigate services in the adult care system. During this transition youth may rely on their families, including siblings, for support. However, delineation of sibling roles and responsibilities during this transition period are unclear. This study aims to identify the roles and responsibilities that siblings perceive to have with their sibling with a neurodisability during the transition to adulthood, and describe the decision-making process of how siblings chose these roles. METHODS: In this descriptive qualitative case study, siblings were eligible to participate if they were between 14 to 40 years old, had a sibling between 14 to 21 years with a childhood-onset neurodisability and spoke English. Semi-structured interviews augmented by techniques of photo elicitation and relational maps were conducted. Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to identify sibling roles, as well as the emotional and decision-making process associated with these roles. Our team partnered with siblings with lived experience in all study phases. RESULTS: Nineteen participants (median age = 19 years, range = 14 to 33 years) from 16 unique families were interviewed. Six unique roles were described: friend, role model/mentor, protector, advocate, supporter, or caregiver. The emotions that siblings experienced with each role, also known as emotional responsibility, were categorized into levels of low, medium or high. Siblings also described a four-phase decision-making process for their roles: (1) acquiring knowledge; (2) preparing plans; (3) making adjustments; and (4) seeking support. Intrapersonal characteristics, including personal identity, values and experiences, influenced roles assumed by siblings. CONCLUSIONS: Siblings identified needing support as they process their decisions and emotional responsibility in their roles when their sibling with a neurodisability is transitioning to adulthood. Resources should be developed or further enhanced to support siblings.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207