Conceptualization, use, and outcomes associated with compassion in the care of youth with childhood-onset disabilities: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction To examine the scope of existing literature on the conceptualization, use, and outcomes associated with compassion in the care of youth with childhood-onset disabilities. Methods A protocol was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review method. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBSCOhost CINAHL, were searched. Results Eight studies were selected for inclusion; four used quantitative methodology, and four used qualitative methods. Compassion was not defined a priori or a posteriori in any of the included studies. The concept of self-compassion was explicitly defined only for parents of youth with childhood-onset disabilities in three studies a priori. The most reported outcome measure was self-compassion in parents of youth with childhood-onset disabilities. Self-compassion among parents was associated with greater quality of life and resiliency and lower stress, depression, shame and guilt. Discussion There is limited evidence on the conceptualization, use, and outcomes associated with compassion among youth with childhood-onset disabilities. Self-compassion may be an effective internal coping process among parents of youth with childhood-onset disabilities. Further research is required to understand the meaning of compassion to youth with childhood-onset disabilities, their parents and caregivers. Systematic review registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2GRB4 .
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 | 0.021 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".