Current and ideal living arrangements and supports for Canadian adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Part <scp>II</scp>—Perspectives from caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caregivers supporting adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) report concerns regarding living arrangements and services for their adult children with FASD. Best practices for living support for adults with FASD are under-researched, and few studies have explored the experiences of caregivers whose children are adults. This study examined the perspectives of caregivers who support adults (18+) with FASD regarding: (1) current ways adults with FASD are supported with daily life activities; and (2) ideal future living arrangements and supports. METHODS: This article presents findings from the perspective of caregivers who support adults with FASD, as part of a broader project involving both adults with FASD and caregivers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Canadian caregivers who live at home with an adult with FASD (aged 18+). Responses were examined using framework analysis, a structured approach to analyzing qualitative data. RESULTS: Caregivers described their experiences and perspectives regarding: (1) current ways adults with FASD are supported in their daily activities; (2) strategies for successful support; (3) ideal future living arrangements and supports; and (4) concerns for the future. Notably, almost every participant raised pressing concerns regarding the future living arrangements for the person they support once they are no longer able to provide care. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores caregivers' perspectives regarding living support needed by adults with FASD, which can inform support programs and housing services. Findings demonstrate an urgent need for policy change directed toward developing available, affordable, and appropriate housing for adults with FASD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".