Analysis of the accessibility of perinatal and early childhood services for parents with physical disabilities: A modelled reading of access barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perinatal and early childhood services are valuable resources for all new parents, particularly in supporting them as they transition to their new role. However, parents with physical disabilities report several barriers to accessing these services, including difficulty physically accessing services, lack of knowledge or negative attitudes of professionals, and lack of adaptation of services. The objective of this article is to analyse, through the Dixon-Woods et al. accessibility model, the barriers to accessing perinatal and early childhood services from the perspective of parents with physical disabilities. Thirteen semi-structured individual interviews, using the life story approach, were conducted. The results highlight barriers to access to services in all dimensions of the accessibility model. Principal barriers reported include non-inclusive criteria for accessing services (taking account both parenthood and disability), lack of knowledge about the services offered and the inadequacy of services in addressing parents’ needs. The sixth dimension (“offers and resistance”) presents a dynamic element, as it relates to the parents’ decision to use – or not – a service to which they are entitled. Using this model allowed for a pragmatic and systematic description of the obstacles encountered by parents, as well as the identification of needs and potential directions for action.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".