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 ( x ¯ = 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".