Participation Strategies Used by Young People With and Without Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation strategies used by young people (YP) are understudied. This study aimed to identify strategies used by YP with and without physical disabilities to promote participation at home, school, community, and workplace. In this qualitative descriptive study, 106 participants ages 12 to 30 ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mover> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> <mml:mo>¯</mml:mo> </mml:mover> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> = 22.7) years, with ( n = 52) and without ( n = 54) physical disabilities, reported up to three strategies to facilitate their participation in four settings using the Youth, Young-Adult Participation and Environment Measure. A total of 1,235 strategies were analyzed using inductive content analysis. As a result, 11 categories emerged; seven were environment-focused and four were person-focused. Both groups used time management, built on intrinsic factors, and utilized social support across all settings. At school, those with disabilities uniquely benefited from accommodative institutional environments. They also reported more strategies involving advocacy, analyzing a situation, and seeking accommodative physical and social environments. The findings illustrate a range of participation strategies YP use that may inform ways to promote participation more effectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".