Indigenous Perspectives on Childhood Disability Across Canada: A Critical Integrative Review and Implications for Service Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgent need for cultural safety and inclusivity when working with Indigenous children with disabilities and their families requires an appreciation of relevant cultural understandings, values, and practices. This critical integrative review identifies and synthesizes works investigating Indigenous perspectives on childhood, development, and disability, emphasizing its significance for professionals in healthcare, social services, and education. A critical integrative review of published works was completed. Five databases were consulted, and the search was supplemented by reference mining and peer and community consultation. Seventeen works met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis generated five cultural considerations for service providers working with Indigenous families: 1) the practice of communal child-rearing; 2) relational identities and the minimization of individual differences; 3) children as gifts and teachers; 4) balance and good relations as key to holistic health; and 5) respect for autonomous development. The reviewed works suggest several ways in which Indigenous perspectives on childhood disability might differ from those of many service providers embedded in Western biomedical education and health institutions. Highlighting these disparate views empowers professionals to reflect on how cultural differences could impact their work with Indigenous children and families and consider approaches that align with Indigenous values and ways of knowing. Implications for service delivery and inter-cultural collaboration are discussed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".