A Systematic Review of the Needs Assessment for Individuals with Physically and Intellectual Disabilities in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, Services, and Gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals with disabilities frequently face challenges in accessing healthcare services. Despite growing attention to disability inclusion worldwide, there remains a significant lack of comprehensive needs assessments for individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there is limited research integrating both quantitative and qualitative findings to provide an evidence-based roadmap for policy and intervention improvements. Objective: to systematically review the needs assessment for physically and intellectually disabled individuals in Saudi Arabia, focusing on the challenges they face, the services available to them, and the existing gaps in support. Methods: This study employed a qualitative approach to explore the barriers faced by individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with educators and caregivers who met specific selection criteria, including relevant experience in special education or caregiving roles. The interviews included open-ended questions to gather in-depth perspectives on educational, societal, familial, curricular, and behavioral challenges. Data collected from these interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis with NVivo software. The analysis process involved coding the data, categorizing emerging themes, and ensuring credibility through strategies such as member checks and expert validation. Results: The study identified several critical barriers experienced by disabled individuals in Saudi Arabia. Educational challenges included a lack of specialized teacher training and inadequacies in addressing diverse learning needs. Societal obstacles, such as stigma and rejection, hindered social inclusion and acceptance. Familial constraints were noted, with limited parental engagement often caused by time pressures and a lack of knowledge. Curricular shortcomings highlighted the rigidity and inflexibility of current educational programs, which failed to cater to individual needs. Lastly, behavioral and emotional challenges, including self-injurious behavior and communication difficulties, were prevalent among disabled individuals. These findings underscore the urgent need for systemic reforms and collaborative efforts to improve support systems. Conclusion: This systematic review underscores the significant barriers faced by physically and intellectually disabled individuals in Saudi Arabia, ranging from limited accessibility in healthcare and public spaces to systemic challenges in education and parental involvement. It underscores the prevalence of physical disabilities (67.3%) among the studied population and identifies that 56.7% of individuals face notable barriers, such as inadequate infrastructure and insufficient specialized healthcare services. Quality-of-life assessments reveal a need for interventions to enhance physical and social inclusion.
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 | 0.027 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".