Disability and rurality: a systematic review of qualitative studies of experiences with disability among families with children and youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children and youth with disabilities and their families living in rural areas often face additional challenges to accessing services and often experience more social isolation than children and youth in urban centers. However, we know relatively little about their lived experiences. The purpose of this review was to explore the experiences of children and youth with disabilities and their parents who live in rural areas. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched six international databases Ovid Medline, Embase, Healthstar, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Fifty-five articles met our inclusion criteria involving 1219 participants, spanning across 21 countries over a 34-year period. Our findings involved the following themes: (1) challenges accessing health care, education and community services; (2) caregiving challenges; (3) stigma, discrimination and isolation; (4) coping and resilience strategies; and (5) intersectional factors affecting rural experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight how living in a rural area can exacerbate challenges for children and youth with disabilities. However, some benefits to rural life exist despite the difficulties that location presents. More rural health care providers and resources are needed to support children with disabilities.
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 | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".