A scoping review of the lived experiences of gender diverse children and youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research exploring the lived experiences of gender diverse children and youth with disabilities is still in its infancy. Previous research has either focused on adults or has lumped the experiences of trans and nonbinary children and youth with disabilities in with broader findings of 2SLGBTQI + youth with disabilities. This is problematic given that experiences of sexual diversity are different than experiences of gender diversity and the experiences of children and youth are not identical to adults. Aims: We conducted a scoping review to map and synthesize research that explores the lived experiences of young people with disabilities who also identify as trans, nonbinary, or gender diverse. The question guiding the review was: what are the lived experiences of gender diverse children and youth with disabilities? Methods: We followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) best practices in scoping review methodology in addition to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We searched seven databases: Ovid Medline, Healthstar, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science for empirical peer-reviewed research. Results: We identified 21 articles that met our inclusion criteria, with an additional 2 articles found from other sources, resulting in 23 included articles. We organized the data in the available research into the following three overarching categories: (1) Experiences of discrimination and abuse; (2) Impact of minoritized identities on health; and (3) Coping strategies of, and interventions to support, gender minoritized youth with disabilities. Conclusions: Our review shows that gender diverse children and youth with disabilities are at increased risk of experiencing discrimination and abuse, which impacts their psychological well-being and quality of life. We conclude that this population requires increased opportunities to socialize in affirming and inclusive environments and greater supports for accessing social and medical transition.
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 | 0.028 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".