MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413358670 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24064

Engaging young adults with disabilities and their families to improve community programming: A Photovoice project

2025· article· en· W4413358670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alana Armas, A Jay Holmgren

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceMedicineNursingMedical educationPsychologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

March of Dimes Canada (MODC) conducted community consultations and found that 58% of parents strongly agreed that there were gaps in services available for young people with disabilities. This led to MODC conducting community-based research to identify new ways to provide family-centered services and programming, while also deepening community connections. We conducted an arts-based research project using Photovoice methodology, which is a powerful research method that has been used by marginalized communities for many years to capture their experiences and perspectives. The study population for this project included youth aged 6 to 25 who are living with a disability; and parents/guardians of children/youth living with a disability. Participants were asked to take and caption photos based on a series of prompts that focused on: () what participants viewed as program strengths and gaps, (2) how they navigate the social and health systems, (3) participants interests, hopes and dreams, and (4) the barriers they face in their everyday lives. Between January 2023 and May 2024, a total of 29 participants from across Canada completed four separate photo activities exploring the foci described above. The participants also completed interviews and focus groups to further discuss their experiences and share their reflections on the photos they captured. Study activities were designed and reviewed by youth and parent advisory committees, ensuring the photo prompts, methods, interviews and focus group discussions were grounded in community interests and needs. To date we have identified five overarching findings: ) Community programs and services are not inclusive and accessible for young people with disabilities and their families/caregivers, with transportation presenting a key barrier; 2) community programs and services do not align with the actual needs of young people with disabilities, specifically young people are looking to connect socially with others and build a sense of belonging; 3) there are many unmet needs for families/caregivers of young people with disabilities, including supporting their mental health and well-being; 4) it is difficult to learn about and navigate both health and social care services; and 5) the transition to adulthood continues to be difficult for young people with disabilities. Currently, our organization is using these findings to improve current programming and inform the development of new, family-centered programming across Canada. This study has shown that young people with disabilities and their families still face many challenges when seeking the support they need to thrive in their communities. It is clear that as we move to improve integrated health and social care systems, we need to authentically engage with communities to ensure we are meeting their actual needs. Organizations and service providers also need to think carefully about accessibility, from transportation, to navigating physical and online spaces, as well easily accessing the right care at the right time. Using the findings from this work to inform program design and improvement is imperative to creating an accessible and barrier-free Canada where everyone can thrive.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→