Parenting Experiences Among Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Parents with intellectual disabilities face many barriers to accessing efficacious supports and services designed to support thriving in their parenting role. A review of research in this area may identify a nuanced understanding of common experiences, including potential barriers and facilitators to success and thriving. Methods A scoping review of 28 studies was conducted to offer a comprehensive answer to the question What are the parenting experiences as shared by adults with intellectual disabilities in the literature over the last two decades (2005–Present)? Findings Key study characteristics and recurring themes are shared. Ableism was a recurring theme experienced across multiple systemic levels including: (1) institutional: broader society and child welfare systems, (2) interpersonal: formal and informal supports and (3) internalised: identity as a parent. Conclusions This study identified that discriminatory assumptions about people with intellectual disabilities and their capacity to succeed in the role of parent generate and exacerbate barriers to autonomy, empowerment, and independence. Opportunities to further research and practice in this area are shared.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".