Investigating Psychological Adaptations of Parents to Childhood Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Parenting a child with a disability presents unique challenges and necessitates psychological adaptation. This study explores the psychological adaptations of parents to childhood disabilities. Materials & Methods A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews with 26 parents of children with disabilities in Richmond Hill, Ontario in 2023. Theoretical saturation was achieved to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the experiences. Meanwhile, the data were analyzed using thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo software. Results Four main themes were identified: Emotional journey, coping strategies, family dynamics, and social and community support. The emotional journey theme included initial reactions of shock and adaptation over time, leading to grief acceptance and positive reappraisals. The coping strategies theme involved seeking information, building a support network, professional support, personal coping mechanisms, and advocacy. Family dynamics revealed changes in family roles, sibling relationships, and marital/partner relationships. Finally, the social and community support theme highlighted the importance of community involvement, access to resources, public perception and stigma, and inclusion and accessibility. Conclusion This study demonstrates parents’ complex and dynamic psychological adaptations to childhood disabilities. It underscores the importance of comprehensive support systems that address the emotional, practical, and social needs of families. The findings highlight the resilience of parents and the necessity for targeted interventions to support their well-being and facilitate positive adaptation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".