Understanding the State of Research Evidence Involving Parents of Children with Cerebral Palsy in the Arab Contexts: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raising a child with cerebral palsy (CP) can be both rewarding and challenging. Family caregivers, typically parents, play an important role in supporting and caring for children with CP. Research on CP family caregiving is growing, but Arab parental caregiving appears absent from this body of work. The objective was to map the scope of the existing literature about parents of children with CP in Arab contexts to identify gaps in knowledge and guide future research. This scoping review was conducted following the JBI methodology. Five major health-related databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, APA Psycinfo) and two general search engines and directories (Google Scholar and Ulrichsweb) were searched. We selected peer-reviewed studies that included parents of children with CP in Arab countries, regardless of publication date or study design. The search included literature published in Arabic and English. We identified ten studies that met our criteria and were published between 2013 and 2022. Across all studies, mothers were the most reported primary caregivers. Four studies reported tasks performed by parental caregivers, including but not limited to transferring, dressing, transportation, and feeding. The included studies explored the financial, social, and information needs of the parents. Studies focused primarily on caregiver burden or other negative consequences of caregiving. Parents in one study only reported increased resilience as a positive consequence. In addition, no studies included interventions. Research on parental caregiving in the Arab context is limited. Further studies are necessary to explore the unique needs and experiences of Arab CP caregivers.
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 | 0.018 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".