Accessibility of Childcare Services for Children With Disabilities Aged 0 to 5 Years: A Scoping Review of Promising Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Article 23 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children with disabilities must have access to education. This includes ensuring access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive childcare services that are specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of young children with disabilities. However, little is known about the factors that enhance the accessibility of childcare services for these children. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify solutions that promote this accessibility as well as the outcome variables collected among children following the implementation of these promising solutions. METHODS: To map available knowledge, a scoping review was conducted. A search strategy developed in collaboration with a research librarian was applied in seven databases: Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, PSYCInfo, Academic Search Premier and Education Source. Two reviewers independently screened the studies identified through the database search. Data were extracted by a single member of the research team and validated by another one. Promising solutions and documented outcome variables in the selected studies were categorised according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies were retained. The solutions most often documented in the scientific literature to improve the accessibility of childcare services for young children with disabilities involve various forms of support and relationships, mainly addressing the social and communication skills of children with autism. These promising solutions are generally child-centred. The literature makes little reference to changes in the physical environment. CONCLUSIONS: This study not only provides a list of solutions that have demonstrated substantial benefits for children with disabilities attending a childcare service but also highlights the need for documentation or development of new solutions. The findings will provide essential evidence that can inform the development of standards for high-quality and inclusive childcare services.
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 | 0.022 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".