Editorial: International Day of Persons with Disabilities – children's disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common thread running through these articles is the critical need for inclusive, equitable, and comprehensive policies and practices to support children with disabilities and their families. Whether addressing socioeconomic disparities, leveraging technological innovations, ensuring effective healthcare transitions, or providing robust educational support, the central theme is the importance of tailored, responsive, and integrated approaches that recognize the unique challenges faced by children with disabilities.As we reflect on these studies, it is evident that while significant progress has been made in supporting children with disabilities, much work remains. The paper of Materula et al. analysing data from the province on Alberta in Canada (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/publichealth/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1280981/full) gives a detailed overview what outcomes to measure to assess the variety of interventions and their effects on children, families and the support system as a whole.Most authors of this research topic are from high-income countries, mostly from North America and Europe. This is concerning as low-and-middle income countries are the home of the majority of children living with disabilities (approximately 80%) (1,2). Research and data are disproportionately scarce in LMICs, which contributes to a limited understanding of healthcare and educational services for people with disabilities (3). This imbalance in knowledge has significant implications for the development of inclusive policies and practices that can address the needs of people with disabilities in these countries.As editors we tried to address the biases that could result in such an epistemic injustice by disseminating the call for submissions broadly in the different networks and contexts in which we work and inviting colleagues from LMICs to submit and review (4,5). Nonetheless, there were also barriers out of our control such as limited availability of financial waivers of article processing charges and potential language barriers that limited submissions in English (6,7).Considering this background, we want to highlight five publications out of the 24 accepted that describe issues relevant to children with disabilities in LMICs: Dada, Khan, & Dewji (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/publichealth/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1332403/full) present an opinion paper discussing the challenges faced by newcomer children with disabilities and their families in Canada. Many of those newcomers are refugees or immigrants from LMICs. The article highlights significant barriers such as language, cultural differences, and financial constraints, calling for inclusive practices and policies to ensure these vulnerable populations receive the care and services they need to thrive.Another study from China (Jacobs et al. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/publichealth/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1292491/full), a high-middle-income country, highlighted the effectiveness of a large-scale vision impairment screening program for children with complex disabilities. As a result of this project, over 1.32 million children were screened, and more than 1,363 children with both complex disabilities and visual impairment were identified. The collaboration between healthcare providers and educators in China has led to significant improvements in diagnosing and supporting children with disabilities, and efforts to sustain these advances are now being championed by key government officials. The success of this project demonstrates the impact of focused intervention programs in LMICs and the crucial role of multi-sectoral collaboration, providing a model that other LMICs could adopt to address complex disabilities more effectively.By addressing the gaps identified in these articles and implementing the recommended policies and practices, we can move closer to a world where every child, regardless of their abilities, has the opportunity to thrive. To further improve the contribution of researchers from LMICs to disability research we suggest the following strategies. First, there is a need for international research collaborations that actively include and support LMIC researchers, providing them with access to funding, mentorship, and publication opportunities. Encouraging the establishment of research networks that prioritize inclusive practices, such as capacity building and knowledge exchange and providing open access to journals and research databases. Policymakers and funding agencies should also recognize the importance of supporting disability-related research in LMICs, as addressing the unique challenges faced by individuals in these regions will have global benefits in promoting inclusive development.This International Day of Persons with Disabilities serves as a reminder of our collective responsibility to ensure that no child is left behind -in every country. This applies to the medical, educational and social care work for persons with disabilities as well as the research and its associated regulations and policies alike.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.016 |
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".