Community Integration and Social Participation for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of community integration and social participation among adults with intellectual disabilities (ID). This qualitative research employed semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth data from 27 adults with intellectual disabilities. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling from various community centers, support groups, and social service organizations. Data were collected until theoretical saturation was achieved. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcribed interviews, identifying key themes and subthemes that captured the essence of the participants' experiences and perceptions. The study identified four main themes: experiences of community integration, types of social activities, perceived benefits and challenges, and influencing factors. Participants reported a strong sense of belonging and personal growth through community activities, despite facing barriers such as stigma, accessibility issues, and financial constraints. Support systems, including family, professionals, and peer networks, played a crucial role in facilitating participation. Recreational, cultural, and educational activities, as well as volunteering, provided significant physical, emotional, and social benefits. Technological advancements, inclusive policies, and personal resilience were identified as critical factors influencing community integration. The findings highlight the importance of enhancing accessibility, support systems, and inclusive policies to promote community integration and social participation for adults with intellectual disabilities. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging facilitators can improve their quality of life and well-being. Future research should employ mixed-methods approaches, include longitudinal studies, and consider the perspectives of family members, caregivers, and professionals to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing community participation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".