Characteristics of interventions for siblings of children and youth with disabilities and chronic conditions: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interventions to support siblings of youth with disabilities and chronic conditions have shown promising outcomes, yet there is limited synthesized literature and guidelines to support their design and development. This scoping review aims to synthesize: (1) study, participant, and intervention characteristics of sibling-focused interventions; and (2) intervention outcomes. METHODS: Scoping review guidelines were aligned with Arksey and O'Malley, with considerations from Levac et al. and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Four databases: (1) Ovid MEDLINE, (2) EMBASE, (3) CINAHL, and (4) PsycInfo were searched through November 2024. Data were extracted on study, participant, and intervention characteristics, and outcomes. The TIDieR checklist structured the reporting of intervention characteristics. RESULTS: = 36; 75.0%) and only nine interventions (18.8%) utilized remote or virtual components. Interventions commonly included educational topics, activities, and social components. Intervention outcomes were focused on mental health, knowledge, self-esteem, social functioning and connectedness, family dynamics, and other. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review synthesizes sibling-focused interventions, highlighting key characteristics and outcomes. Findings can guide meaningful and inclusive, evidence-based rehabilitation practices addressing siblings' unique needs.
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 | 0.019 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".