Participation at home of adults with multiple disabilities and influencing factors from their parents’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To understand participation at home of adults with multiple disabilities and the indicators of their engagement from the parents’ perspective as well as to explore the influencing environmental factors.Methods A qualitative, descriptive design was used. Participants had to be the parent of an adult presenting multiple disabilities aged between 21 and 65 with no degenerative diagnosis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide, anchored in the Human Development Model – Disability Creation Process and developed through an iterative process. Data were analyzed using a 6-step qualitative analysis process.Results The majority (5/8) of participating parents were aged between 56 and 61 years and were the parents of an adult with multiple disabilities aged between 21 and 41. Two themes for participation were generated: communication to build relationships, and they are disabled, but not so much whereas four themes relating to environmental factors were generated: context as a determinant of meaningful activity, the effects of the caregiver’s attitude on social participation, the importance of the relationship of trust, and facilitating participation through adaptations.Conclusion Non-verbal communication and context of realization of activities of adults with multiple disabilities should be considered as they contribute to making participation meaningful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".