Empowerment in Adolescent Patients with a Disability/Chronic Condition: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Empowerment has been associated with several positive outcomes in healthcare; however, there is limited insight on empowerment levels within the adolescent population of those with a chronic condition/disability. The aim of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the existing literature on empowerment levels within this population. METHODS: Five databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], EMBASE [Ovid], PsycINFO [Ebsco], CINHAL [Ebsco] and Web of Science [UBC]) and grey literature were searched. RESULTS: A total of 67 studies were included and used for data extraction including descriptive numerical analysis followed by a narrative review. Extracted data were divided into demographic characteristics (e.g., ethnicity/ancestry), type of disability/condition (e.g., type 1 diabetes), interventions used to increase empowerment or empowerment-adjacent elements, quantitative and qualitative tools used to measure empowerment (e.g., questionnaires and/or interviews), domains/outcomes associated with empowerment (e.g., self-control), and review articles. Several interventions were shown to have positive effects on empowerment levels in adolescents with a chronic condition/disability. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps were identified in the consideration of ethnicity/ancestry and socioeconomic status, demonstrating a need for future research in this space to focus on the intersection of disability, ethnicity/ancestry, and socio-economic status and the implementation of interventions promoting empowerment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".