MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413358727 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24140

Service integration for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities with support needs and their families: qualitative study.

2025· article· en· W4413358727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia Basualto, Angela M. Senevirathna, Ash Seth, Gina Dimitropoulos, Jennifer Zwicker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchService (business)Integrated servicesSpecial needsMultiple disabilitiesIntegrated careService providerPsychologyNursingMedicineDevelopmental psychologyHealth carePsychiatryComputer scienceBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities commitments (1), government support and services are important in reducing barriers to social participation through access to services for children and youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) and their families (2). Research has demonstrated that children with NDD and their families face several challenges in navigating the fragmented landscape of disability services and support in Canada (3). However, limited information exists on decision-maker and service-provider perspectives on improving service integration. Approach: To explore the perspectives of service providers and decision-makers about system barriers and facilitators to navigate services for children and youth with support needs (CYSN) and their families in British Columbia and identify solutions to address these. Using a qualitative descriptive methodology, inductive thematic data analysis was conducted in 6 semi-structured interviews with service providers and decision-makers from childhood disability services across ministries in British Columbia. Prospective interviewees were identified by performing an internet search on social media and consulting with our stakeholders' representatives (Research Advisory Council, Kids Brain Health Network). A semi-structured interview guide including relevant topics was developed by the research team and was reviewed, piloted and adjusted by the Project ACCESS Advisory Council to ensure a patient and family-orientated perspective. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted by the research team. Results: Eight themes were identified. These themes encompass aspects of the system navigation challenges, barriers, facilitators and policy recommendations to improve service integration for children and youth with support needs and their families. The system navigation challenges are related to variability in funding and program implementation and tension between the roles across and within sectors, which undermines the capability of the system to adapt to the needs of children and families. The system-level barriers are related to a fragmented and under-resourced system of services and support, whereas the family-child level includes barriers and facilitators related to their advocacy capacity and experiences of trust and collaboration with the system. Potential policy recommendations to improve the integration of care and facilitate navigation services and support are organized into three themes: integrate system values and a model of care, improve services and support implementation and build relationships and collaborations across the system. Implications: These results reveal critical recommendations for changes in disability policy and program implementation from the perspectives of decision-makers and service providers to improve the disability system integration and address the challenges in navigating disability services and support through more equitable childhood disability support policies and programs. These recommendations will be prioritized by representatives of families with children with NDD, services providers and decision-makers working in disability services and support, using a Nominal Group Technique methodology. Knowledge translation outputs will disseminate the prioritized recommendations as policy briefs and a policy forum. References. OHCHR [Internet]. [cited 2024 May 29]. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities2. Dutton DJ, Forest PG, Kneebone RD, Zwicker JD. Effect of provincial spending on social services and health care on health outcomes in Canada: an observational longitudinal study. CMAJ [Internet]. 208 Jan 22 [cited 2024 May 29];90(3):E66-7. Available from: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/90/3/E663. Finlay B, Wittevrongel K, Materula D, Hbert ML, OGrady K, Lach LM, et al. Pan-Canadian caregiver experiences in accessing government disability programs: A mixed methods study. Res Dev Disabil [Internet]. 2023 Mar [cited 2024 Apr 5];34:04420. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089422222002505

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→