Exploring the Parental Profiles, Knowledge, and Barriers on Access to Support Services for Children with Intellectual Disabilities

Exploring the Parental Profiles, Knowledge, and Barriers on Access to Support Services for Children with Intellectual Disabilities

Jomar C. Abellana, Niña Rozanne T. Delos Reyes, Raymond C. Espina, Janine Joy L. Tenerife-Cañete, Reylan G. Capuno, Irene O. Mamites, Lilibeth C. Pinili

Cebu Technological University – Main Campus Cebu City, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0552

Received: 07 October 2025; Accepted: 14 October 2025; Published: 17 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explored the parental demographic and socioeconomic profiles, knowledge, and barriers on access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities in the Toledo City Division. In addition, this research employed a descriptive correlational design, involving 185 parents of children with intellectual disabilities. They were selected using purposive sampling. Data was collected through a structured and validated questionnaire and examined using descriptive statistics and correlation analyses. The statistical analysis involved frequency counts, percentages, weighted means, and correlations to assess the relationships among the variables. The parental profiles of the respondents were then correlated with various variables, including the level of parental awareness of government and private sector support services, the extent of support services utilized, and the barriers parents encounter when seeking support for their children with ID. The findings showed that a significant portion of respondents fell within the age range of 30–39 years (34.1%), were married (63.8%), and lived in urban settings (44.8%). Most children were categorized as having mild ID (45.9%), and 26.5% of parents reported having only one child. In terms of socioeconomic factors, 23.2% of parents had completed college education, 75.1% depended primarily on salaries or wages for income, 57.3% had monthly earnings below Php 9,520, and 73% were homeowners. Overall, parents generally felt that they were knowledgeable about available support services, although their experiences in accessing these services differed, as many gave neutral feedback. Respondents also recognized that obstacles existed in obtaining support. Statistical results revealed that parental educational level and type of residence were significantly linked to awareness of support services. The classification of the child’s ID showed a strong correlation with the level of services used, while residential location, education level, and monthly income were significantly associated with the extent of barriers faced. These results highlight the necessity for targeted efforts to improve awareness, reduce access inequalities, and tackle parental profiles that affect service usage. The study recommended implementing an action plan for equitable access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities.

Keywords— Children with Intellectual Disabilities, Parents, Access, Support Services, Descriptive Correlational Design

INTRODUCTION

Children with intellectual disabilities (ID) encounter unique developmental, educational, and social challenges that require specific support services. These services may include early intervention programs, specialized education, therapeutic support, healthcare, and family assistance initiatives aimed at improving the child’s quality of life and facilitating their full participation in society. The availability and accessibility of these support services are essential not only for the child’s growth but also for supporting families in coping with the responsibilities of care. However, the ability to obtain these services may be affected by various factors, such as demographic and socioeconomic conditions, parental knowledge, and systemic barriers within the healthcare and education systems.

Parents play an important role in seeking, navigating, and utilizing support services for their children with ID. Their knowledge about available programs, understanding of eligibility requirements, and ability to overcome barriers directly shape the child’s opportunities for growth and inclusion in the educational institution and society. Research of Emping et al. (2025) suggests that gaps in parental profiles and awareness, paired with structural challenges such as high costs, limited service availability, or long waiting times, can delay or even prevent children from receiving essential interventions. Additionally, the social context, marked by misconceptions, cultural perceptions of disability, and varying levels of community support, can further impact a family’s ability to access services.

In many communities, examining how factors like parents’ education, income, occupation, location, and family structure relate to their awareness of available resources and their experiences with support services can reveal important areas for development. Recognizing these connections is vital for creating policies and programs that truly meet the needs of families with children who have intellectual disabilities, particularly in settings where resources are scarce and demand is high. By mapping out trends in parental characteristics and identifying the main obstacles they face, stakeholders can do their part in suggesting and crafting programs for a fairer, more focused, and more effective approach to improving access to services for children with ID.

Providing early and consistent support services significantly improves developmental outcomes for children with intellectual disabilities, yet these services are not equally accessible. Factors such as demographic profiles, socioeconomic status, and parental education often determine whether a child receives timely and appropriate interventions. In many cases, the families who most need assistance are those who face the most significant obstacles in obtaining it.

Parental knowledge plays a crucial role in overcoming these obstacles. When parents are well-informed about the types of available services, the processes for accessing them, and the benefits they provide, they are more likely to seek and sustain engagement with these resources. Conversely, limited awareness can result in delayed interventions, missed opportunities, and poorer developmental outcomes. Parents’ profiles, such as their educational background, employment status, and social networks, often shape this knowledge by influencing how they obtain and interpret information.

However, knowledge alone is not always sufficient. Structural and systemic barriers can persist even when parents are aware of the services they need. These may include financial constraints, limited transportation options, scarcity of specialized facilities, lengthy waiting periods, and rigid eligibility criteria. Furthermore, cultural stigma and negative societal attitudes toward disability can discourage families from seeking help, thereby deepening isolation and unmet needs.

As Toledo City seeks to strengthen support for children with intellectual disabilities, understanding the role of parents has become essential in ensuring equitable access to services. Families are key partners in identifying needs, seeking resources, and sustaining interventions that enhance their children’s development. However, despite the presence of some programs and initiatives, their reach and effectiveness remain uncertain, particularly in local settings. The researcher is driven to examine this issue due to noticeable gaps in how parents access and utilize available support services. Factors such as varying parental backgrounds, limited knowledge of resources, financial and logistical constraints, and minimal community engagement continue to hinder the full realization of these services’ potential.

Additionally, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on disability and equity. By highlighting the intersections between parental backgrounds, awareness, and structural barriers, the research emphasizes the need for inclusive, family-centered support models. Service delivery should not be one-size-fits-all, and understanding family diversity is essential to making support systems work more fairly and effectively.

By examining the relationships between parental profiles, knowledge levels, and perceived barriers, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence service access. The research is significant because it will identify not only the gaps in awareness but also the broader understanding of how demographic, socioeconomic, and systemic challenges affect access to support services, which the different stakeholders must help to address, to improve equity in service provision. Ultimately, the study seeks to provide evidence that can guide the development of an action plan for more equitable, inclusive, and quality access to support services for children with ID and their families in Toledo City.

Legal Basis

This study is also anchored on legal bases such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the Republic Act No. 11650, “an act instituting a policy of inclusion and service for learners with disabilities in support of inclusive education, establishing inclusive learning resource centers of learners with disabilities, institutionalizing support mechanisms, providing for standards, appropriating funds therefor, and for other purposes” and Republic Act No. 7727, “an act providing rehabilitation, self-development, self-reliance of person with disabilities, and their integration into the mainstream of society and for other purposes”.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is an international treaty concerning human rights that was approved by the UN General Assembly on December 13, 2006. It was opened for signing on March 30, 2007, and achieved the necessary number of ratifications to come into effect on May 3, 2008. The aim of the treaty is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all individuals with disabilities, while fostering respect for their intrinsic dignity (Lord, 2022).

Significantly, the CRPD was the inaugural human rights treaty to incorporate the participation of its intended stakeholders, which includes a diverse array of persons with disabilities, civil society representatives, and members of national human rights institutions from around the world. Additionally, this Convention was the first fundamental human rights treaty to be developed with consistent access to the internet, Wi-Fi, and smartphones during the drafting phase, enabling communication between stakeholders at the United Nations and those not physically in attendance. As such, the negotiation process was groundbreaking and remarkably transparent for the Treaty of Human Rights. The Optional Protocol to the CRPD currently has 103 States Parties. The CRPD stands out as the first Treaty of Human rights to receive widespread endorsement from its target groups, consisting of individuals with disabilities and civil society, and to be negotiated in an environment with internet access, ensuring it was open and transparent (Lord, 2022).

The CRPD is linked to agreements that encompass social, economic, civil, political, and cultural rights, notably the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 1 characterizes disability as a social issue arising from interactions with societal barriers. The treaty recognizes that disability is a fluid notion influenced by societal attitudes and environmental obstacles, and that people with disabilities may experience different forms of discrimination.

Articles 3-9 outline overarching principles, including respect for individual autonomy, responsibilities of States Parties, promoting awareness, and ensuring accessibility. Article 4 mandates that states engage and incorporate the perspectives of individuals with disabilities when developing legislation and policies, emphasizing the concept of “Nothing about us without us.” The CRPD prohibits discrimination based on disability and provides a specific definition of it, influencing legal decisions in human rights tribunals and state courts.

The CRPD elucidates human rights related to disability, encompassing the right to life, protection from torture, access to education, employment, political engagement, and justice. Additionally, it includes provisions for independent living, personal mobility, as well as habilitation and rehabilitation, which may not be directly linked to established human rights standards. The CRPD ensures that children with disabilities receive an education in inclusive school settings. Articles 31-40 address the measures for implementation and monitoring, while articles 41-50 outline the workings of the Convention, including its entry into force and amendment processes.

The Optional Protocol governs procedures for communication and inquiries, enhancing the review authority of the CRPD Committee. The CRPD has profoundly impacted national policies and legislations regarding disability rights across the globe, to create a more inclusive and equal society for persons with disabilities. Important challenges still exist in entirely implementing its provisions across numerous regions of the world.

The United Nations CPRD seeks to enhance and protect the rights of people with disabilities, fostering, their complete involvement in society. Although nations have implemented anti-discrimination laws, significant challenges remain in fulfilling the requirements of the CRPD (Bratan et al., 2020). In Namibia, despite being a signatory, individuals with disabilities continue to face disenfranchisement due to stigma and a lack of accessibility (Chibaya et al., 2021).

The CRPD encompasses accessibility as a fundamental principle and a general duty, potentially creating a new human right to accessibility. In Malaysia, laws have been enacted, and the CRPD has been ratified to empower and protect individuals with disabilities, demonstrating a commitment to aligning with international human rights treaties while adhering to national standards. However, the implementation of these measures is progressing slowly and is ineffective, necessitating continuous efforts to improve the rights and living conditions of people with disabilities (Azmi & Basir, 2020).

The CPRD established by the United Nations marks an important milestone in promoting the rights of individuals with disabilities. It provides legal and constitutional support to ensure their rights and entitlements, with Article 33 outlining the measures for implementation and oversight for countries that ratify it (Chibaya et al., 2021). The CRPD has impacted global law and policy reforms, promoting proactive values of equality and favorable adaptations for people with disabilities (O’Mahony & Quinlivan, 2020).

Articles 12 and 14, which ensure universal legal capacity and the right to liberty, are particularly crucial for addressing involuntary psychiatric treatment and detention (Rozinskis & Rourke, 2024). Since its introduction, there has been an increase in interdisciplinary research focused on the social, workplace, educational, and financial inclusion of individuals with disabilities (Martínez-Medina et al., 2022). The CRPD functions as a powerful tool for promoting the rights and full integration of people with disabilities into society (O’Mahony & Quinlivan, 2020).

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities signifies a major step forward in promoting the rights of individuals with disabilities, although there are several challenges to its execution. The CRPD, although introduced later than necessary, marks a crucial effort to integrate the protection of disability rights into mainstream discussions (Liu, 2023). Despite being rooted in the social model of disability, applying it in mental health environments remains problematic and necessitates a broader agenda for transformation beyond just reforms in psychiatry (Russo & Wooley, 2020).

The way governments manage personal assistance programs in light of the CRPD often prioritizes cost savings over the safeguarding of rights, underscoring the need for collaboratively designed laws and policies (Nally et al., 2021). Despite advancements in inclusive education through CRPD execution in European countries, students with intellectual disabilities have not benefited equally, with many still placed in special schools. This situation underscores specific shortcomings in the implementation of the CRPD for this group (Buchner et al., 2020).

Republic Act No. 11650, referred to as the “Establishing a Policy of Inclusion and Services for Learners with Disabilities in Support of Inclusive Education Act,” seeks to guarantee quality education for students with disabilities by establishing Inclusive Learning Resource Centers (ILRCs) and formalizing support systems, setting benchmarks, designating financial resources for these efforts, and tackling various related issues.

The government ought to enact a policy that safeguards and promotes every individual’s right to receive high-quality education at all levels. Furthermore, it should take necessary measures to ensure that this type of education is available to everyone. This legislation mandates that no student with a disability be excluded from receiving an equitable, inclusive, and high-quality education, thereby improving their prospects for lifelong learning.

The goals of this legislation are to provide accessible and appropriate public education for early and basic learning to students with special needs, support the establishment of Inclusive Learning Resource Centers (ILRCs) for these learners, and empower students with disabilities to reach their fullest potential. Additionally, the law seeks to change community perceptions of disability, ensuring that learners with disabilities are understood, respected, and treated with dignity. To further improve the process of identifying, referring, and intervening for students with disabilities, the Child Find System will be employed to help pinpoint individuals with disabilities between the ages of three (3) and twenty-four (24).

The law defines terms such as inclusive education, which provides students with disabilities equal opportunities to receive educational services with their same-age peers. It also describes learners with disabilities as individuals who require additional assistance due to either temporary or permanent impairments that may hinder their complete participation in society.

The legislation also establishes ILRCs in all cities and municipalities to provide free support and related services related to inclusive education. These centers will facilitate the Child Find System, conduct educational assessments, prepare Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and provide instructional materials along with training. This RA 11650 highlights the significance of support services, training for staff, and cooperation between government entities, local government units (LGUs), and the private sector in successfully executing inclusive education for students with special educational needs.

RA 11650 outlines the state’s responsibility to provide free and quality public early and basic education to individuals with disabilities. It mandates the establishment of ILRCs in every municipality and city, which will provide specialized services, including educational assessments, Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and teacher training. The Act also adopts a “whole-of-community” approach, promoting collaboration among schools, families, and other stakeholders to ensure inclusion.

The content is following international agreements, specifically the UN CPRD, which highlights the importance of accessible services, reasonable adjustments, and healthcare to aid the growth of learners. Furthermore, the legislation mandates the creation of partnerships between the public and private sectors, encouraging the participation of private enterprises in initiatives promoting inclusive education. It also stipulates support from the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and other pertinent agencies to furnish the essential resources, training, and facilities for effective implementation.

The “Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,” officially known as R.A. No. 7277, is a comprehensive law that was established in the Philippines on March 24, 1992, to enhance the welfare and protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. This legislation highlights the significance of rehabilitation, personal growth, and social inclusion, asserting that individuals with disabilities are vital members of the Philippine community and possess the same rights as all other citizens. The government pledges to promote their overall well-being, improve their skills, and empower them to compete for resources.

It laid the foundation for equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Its main goal is to ensure that children with special needs have access to fundamental education. This Magna Carta mandates the complete implementation of quality education and opportunities that are suitable and equitable for them.

The Act outlines the State’s commitment to providing individuals with disabilities the necessary support to improve their overall quality of life and facilitate their integration into society. It requires the enhancement of skills and competencies for individuals with disabilities (PWDs) to enable them to compete fairly for existing opportunities. The law also acknowledges the contribution of the private sector in advancing the well-being of PWDs and promotes collaboration in efforts aimed at meeting their needs and concerns.

The Act defines key concepts such as “disabled persons,” “impairment,” “disability,” and “handicap” to clarify its scope. It encompasses a broad spectrum of rights and benefits, including equal employment opportunities, access to quality education, and comprehensive health services. The Act addresses additional social services, telecommunications, accessibility, as well as political and civil rights, with the intention of creating a society without barriers and ensuring full integration.

In the field of education, RA 7277 safeguards persons with disabilities (PWDs) by ensuring they have access to quality education and training, banning discrimination against those with special needs in educational institutions, and mandating the provision of support services for learning. Additionally, the law facilitates the establishment of special education programs and promotes the inclusion of PWDs in regular educational settings whenever feasible.

RA 7277 makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities in various domains, including job opportunities, transportation, and access to public facilities and services. It encourages employers to hire people with disabilities and emphasizes the need for providing reasonable accommodations. The law also outlines penalties for violations, including fines and imprisonment, and establishes enforcement processes under the authority of the Secretary of Justice.

The legislation mandates the provision of health care services, including preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative care. It also ensures access to additional social services, such as job placement assistance, counseling, and community-oriented rehabilitation programs. Overall, RA 7277 aims to create an inclusive society where individuals with disabilities can exercise their rights and contribute to national progress.

Furthermore, studies have found that the income level of parents serves as a protective factor, with higher income associated with a greater variety of children’s engagement in both formal and informal activities, as well as increased intensity and frequency of children’s participation in leisure activities (Zeidan et al., 2021).

Ultimately, the knowledge acquired from this study has the potential to influence policies and practices designed to promote equity and inclusion. Tackling these inequalities not only meets the legal and ethical responsibilities of the state but also advances society towards authentic inclusivity, guaranteeing that every child, regardless of their background or abilities, receives the necessary support to succeed.

This study is based on legal structures that collectively support the rights of individuals with disabilities to obtain inclusive education, access essential support services, and actively participate in society. These legislative measures establish a foundation ensuring that all children with disabilities, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have equal opportunities for growth and access to appropriate support.

The study focuses on how the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of parents, along with their understanding of resources, affect the accessibility of services for children with intellectual disabilities. Such legal frameworks provide a solid foundation for assessing whether current systems align with national and international commitments to equity and inclusion.

Within this assumption, the research seeks to recommend an action plan that will impact the capacity to access early intervention, education, health, and social care services as a basis for guaranteeing equitable access to support services for all children with intellectual disability and their families. It will also identify where the intervention is most necessary, whether in public education, policy enactment, or service allocation, so that children with intellectual disabilities are not further disadvantaged by economic obstacles they cannot control.

Significance of the Study

The study’s primary goal is to explore the parental demographic and socioeconomic profiles, knowledge, and barriers on access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities (ID) in the Toledo City Division. The results of this research could be beneficial for policy makers and government agencies, service providers (schools, NGOs, healthcare centers), advocacy groups, and disability rights organizations, families of children with intellectual disabilities, children with intellectual disabilities, researchers and academics, and future researchers.

Objectives of the Study

This study explores the parental demographic and socioeconomic profiles, knowledge, and barriers on access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities in the Toledo City Division for the S.Y. 2025-2026, providing a basis for the proposed Action Plan.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following sub-problems:

1.What are the demographic and socioeconomic profiles of the parent-respondents?

2.What is the respondents’ level of parental knowledge of support services by the government and private sectors toward children with intellectual disabilities?

3.As perceived by parent-respondents, what is the extent of support services accessed by children with intellectual disabilities?

4.What is the extent of barriers do parents face when accessing support services for their children with intellectual disabilities?

5.Is there a significant relationship between the parent-respondents’ profiles and 5.1 level of parental knowledge of support services by the government and private sectors;

5.2 extent of support services accessed; and

5.3 the extent of barriers does parents face when accessing support services for their children with intellectual disabilities?

Based on the findings, what action plan can be proposed to improve access to support services to children with intellectual disabilities with diverse backgrounds?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This part outlines the methodology used to explore parental demographic and socioeconomic profiles on access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities. The researcher’s collected data was used in this study, including the research design, research environment, research population, sampling technique, research instrument, validity, and data collection procedures. Finally, this chapter discussed the statistical treatment that is acceptable for data interpretation.

Research Design

The study examined the parental demographic and socioeconomic status, knowledge, and barriers to accessing support services for children with ID in the Division of Toledo City using a descriptive-correlational design. This approach is suitable because the study aims to both describe the socioeconomic characteristics of parents of children with ID and examine the relationship between those characteristics and their knowledge, barriers to accessing support services.

By collecting numerical data through a structured survey questionnaire, the study can identify patterns in service access and test whether variables such as number of children, education, source of income, and estimated family income are significantly associated with factors like awareness, frequency, and satisfaction with services. This design is effective for analyzing associations without manipulating variables, making it appropriate for real-world social research.

Environment

The setting of this study is the Schools Division of Toledo City. It is located in the Province of Cebu, and is part of the Department of Education in Region VII (Central Visayas). Initially, it was a district within the Schools Division of Cebu Province. When Toledo was established as a chartered city under Republic Act No. 2688 in 1963, it became a distinct division. Its office is situated on D. Macapagal Highway, Poblacion, Toledo City, Cebu.

These schools were specifically chosen. They provide valuable context for investigating the relationship between parental profiles, such as socioeconomic position, educational background, and informational accessibility, and their comprehension of and utilization of support services.

These areas represent common communities where access to public special education is either limited or concentrated in specific schools, which makes them suitable for examining the challenges parents may face. The participating schools run SPED programs and offer inclusive classes that integrate children with intellectual disabilities into regular classrooms.

The study sites were chosen included both urban and rural areas so that the research could capture different kinds of challenges and available resources. This helps give a clearer picture of how location and school systems might influence parents’ access to support services. The schools were also selected because their administrators and local leaders were open to participating and willing to help with data collection and participant recruitment.

The study was conducted in the elementary schools across the Schools Division of Toledo City. This setting includes public elementary schools actively implementing special and inclusive education policies.

The research environment of the study were the following institutions:

South City Central School – Toledo City Special Needs Education Center. This school is located at D. Macapagal Highway, Poblacion, Toledo City, Cebu. The 2-storey, four-classroom school building, housing learners with special educational needs, was turned over on January 3, 2025, and named the Toledo City Special Needs Education Center, a center within a school. It started offering special program classes in 2009. It became a center within the school in 2015, making it the first school in the DepEd Toledo City Division to offer special education classes accommodating graded classes for students with hearing and visual impairments from Kindergarten to Grades 1-6, as well as students with intellectual disabilities.

Moreover, 78 learners with intellectual disabilities and 13 students with hearing impairments and visual impairments were enrolled for the school year 2025-2026. As of this time, the said school is well-taken care of by seven (7) special needs education teachers. These seven teachers are holding special education teaching items.

Matab-ang Elementary School. This school is in Barangay Matab-ang, Toledo City, and is situated adjacent to the national highway. It is 8.5 kilometers away and a 20 to 30-minute ride from the city center. This institution provides an extensive elementary program, and in 2015, they introduced special education classes to better serve the educational requirements of these exceptional students. These students are also organized based on their individual learning needs. They devote two makeshift classrooms that house these 29 learners diagnosed with intellectual disabilities and are supervised and handled by two special needs education teachers.

Don Andres Soriano Elementary School. It is situated 17.2 kilometers away from the center of Toledo City. It is in Barangay Don Andres Soriano, Toledo City. It stands prominently along the national highway, making it easily accessible to students and families in the area. It caters to students with intellectual disabilities, as well as those with hearing and visual impairments. It has a total number of 68 exceptional learners that five (5) special needs education teachers handled. They devote five physical and makeshift classrooms that house these students with special needs.

Biga Elementary School. This school is in Barangay Biga, Toledo City, and falls under the East District of the DepEd Toledo City Division. This school is closely connected to community life, having an active barangay official supporting school and community activities. It offers complete elementary courses and provides self-contained classes for students with intellectual disabilities. The schools have a total of 10 learners diagnosed with intellectual disabilities and are handled by one special needs education teacher.

Respondents

The participants of this research were the parents of children with ID from the various elementary schools in Toledo City Division, namely: South City Central School, Matab-ang Elementary School, Don Andres Soriano Elementary School, and Biga Elementary School. A total of 185 parents of children with intellectual disabilities were selected as respondents. They were selected using purposive sampling.

Based on the distribution of respondents, it can be inferred that most respondents were from South City Central School, accounting for a total of 78, or 42.16% of the total number of respondents. This school is situated in Poblacion, Toledo City, and is also located in a densely populated area.

In addition, it was followed by Don Andres Elementary School, which has a percentage of 36.76% comprising the 68 parents of children with ID in the distribution of respondents. Next to Don Andres Elementary School is Matab-ang Elementary School, with a total of 29 respondents, making up 15.68%. Lastly, Biga Elementary School had the fewest respondents, with 10 parents of children with ID, or 5.40% of the respondents.

Instrument

The instrument used in this research is a researcher-made questionnaire designed to gather data on parental profiles, knowledge, and barriers related to access to support services for children with ID. The use of a researcher-made questionnaire allowed for specific tailoring to local contexts, making the data more relevant to local conditions. It was developed based on a review of existing literature, related studies, and input from professionals in the fields of special education and social work. It consisted of sections covering demographic and socioeconomic information, awareness and knowledge of available services, and perceived barriers to accessing these services.

To ensure the reliability and clarity of the items, the instrument underwent pilot testing and validity testing. A small group of parents, comprising 30 parents of children with ID who were not included in the final list of respondents, was selected to answer the draft version of the questionnaire. Their feedback helped identify unclear questions, suggest improvements, and test how long the survey takes to complete.

The tool was validated by an expert in the field using Cronbach’s alpha, and the results of the reliability analysis demonstrated that the instruments used to measure Parental Knowledge of Support Services, Access to Support Services, and Barriers to Accessing Support Services for children with intellectual disabilities exhibited satisfactory levels of internal consistency. Specifically, the Cronbach’s alpha values for the three scales are as follows: 0.925 (Excellent), 0.876 (Good), and 0.778 (Acceptable), respectively.

These findings suggest that the items within each scale consistently measure their intended constructs, with the Parental Knowledge scale showing excellent reliability, Access showing good reliability, and Barriers demonstrating acceptable reliability. Such reliability ensures that participants’ responses are stable, dependable, and suitable for further statistical analysis. Given these findings, it is recommended that the survey instruments be administered to collect further data and facilitate analysis.

Moreover, the survey questionnaire used has four sections:

The first section itemized the different demographic and socioeconomic profiles of the parents of children with ID, basic family, and personal background (child’s ID classification, age, gender, marital status, number of children) and key indicators of socioeconomic status includes education level, source of income, household income, housing situation, and geographic location.

The second section was used to find out what parents know about existing support services for their child and how they learned about them.

The third section explored how a child with intellectual disability is being given access to required support services as perceived by the parent or guardian.

The fourth section assesses the extent to which respondents encounter barriers in accessing support services for children with intellectual disabilities.

Data Gathering Procedure

This study undergone three stages in the data gathering procedure to answer the sub-problems.

Preliminary Stage. A letter of approval from the Schools Division Superintendent of Toledo City was obtained by the researcher to carry out the research. The required documents were gathered before sending the letter request to the Division office. After receiving authorization from the Schools Division Superintendent, a transmittal letter was delivered to the principals of the schools providing special needs education classes. An orientation was then conducted for the parents or guardians of the children with ID, where the study’s purpose was explained, and their complete support and cooperation were secured.

Data Gathering Stage. Following approval, respondents received an orientation on the research purpose, and clear instructions were provided to prevent confusion. Participants were allowed to seek clarification before receiving the questionnaire. This allowed them to fully understand the research study, which is essential for the reliability of the gathered data.

Post Data Gathering Stage. Immediately after collecting the survey questionnaires, the researcher compiled and analyzed the responses, followed by interpreting the data. Suitable statistical methods were applied to examine the collected data, providing a thorough insight into the topics being investigated. A token of appreciation was offered to the participants for their involvement in the research study.

Statistical Treatment

This study examined the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of parents to assess access to support services for children with ID in the Toledo City Division, employing a descriptive-correlational research design.

A structured questionnaire was utilized to gather information from the parents or guardians of children with ID. The analysis of the collected responses involved statistical methods such as frequency and percentage distribution, weighted mean, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation coefficient, aiming to interpret the relationship between socioeconomic factors, income level, educational achievement, employment status, type of housing, and location, and the use and access to available support services.

The research questioned the frequency of obtaining these services, their awareness of government or privately offered assistance programs, and some barriers that the parents faced. Moreover, ANOVA and Chi-square tests will be employed in establishing significant relationships or variations among groups in terms of socioeconomic background. The study will help in setting up policies and developing intervention plans to address the identified gaps and propose an action plan for improving service access for children with ID.

Ethical Consideration

The researcher prioritizes privacy and safety throughout this study and will communicate with respondents via their parents or guardians using a consent form. This consent form will be clearly explained to the participants involved in the study. Once consent is obtained, all responses, treated as raw data, will remain private and confidential. Therefore, they will exclusively serve the purpose of this research.

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis conducted on the survey data, which are organized in tabular form. Furthermore, this section provides a comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the data under the research objectives.

The results are organized according to the themes, variables, or categories identified in the research framework, allowing for a logical and systematic discussion. Each set of findings is accompanied by an interpretation that links the data to relevant literature, highlighting patterns, relationships, and implications.

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

This portion presents the demographic profile of the respondents who participated in the study. The data include key variables such as age, gender, civil status, child’s intellectual disability classification, number of children, and location of residence of the respondents, and describe the demographic profile of the parent-respondents through the use of frequency and percentage. These characteristics provide a comprehensive overview of the respondents’ backgrounds, which are essential for contextualizing the findings of the study.

The table reflects a diverse range of demographic attributes, highlighting variations in age groups, gender distribution, and living arrangements. Understanding these profiles is crucial for interpreting the respondents’ perspectives and experiences in relation to the research objectives.

Table 2 Demographic Profile of the Respondents

According to the data, sixty-three respondents, representing 34.1 percent, fall within the age range of 30 to 39 years. Fifty-eight parents, representing 31.4 percent, are aged between 40 and 49 years. Thirty-five parents, representing 18.9 percent, are within the age bracket of 50 to 59 years. Fifteen, or 8.1 percent, of the parents fall within the age range of 20 to 29 years. Twelve parents, or 6.5 percent, are aged 60-69 years, while the age groups 70-79 and 80-89 years each comprise one parent, or 0.5 percent. The bulk of parent-respondents were female, totaling 155, which constitutes 83.8 percent of the respondents, while male parent-respondents numbered 30, accounting for 16.2 percent.

Moreover, the table also indicates that 63.8 percent, or 118 of the total parent-respondents, were “Married”; 18.9 percent, or 35, were “Live-in”; 15.1 percent, or 28, were “Single Parent”; and 2.2 percent, or 4, were “Separated.”

The findings in the table imply that the vast majority of the children’s intellectual disability classification fall under “Mild” which is 45.9 percent or 85; 38.9 percent or 72 of the total number of children’s intellectual disability classification is “Moderate”; while 13.5 percent or 25 of the total number of children’s intellectual disability classification is “Severe”, and 1.6 percent or 3 of the total number of children’s intellectual disability classification is “Profound”.

As shown in the table, forty-nine parents have only 1 child, accounting for 26.5 percent, thirty-nine parents have 2 children or 21.1 percent, thirty-four parents have 4 children or 18.4 percent, thirty-three parents have 3 children or 17.8 percent, thirteen parents have 6 children or 7.0 percent, twelve parents have 5 children or 6.5 percent, four parents have 7 children or 2.2 percent; and 1 parent has 8 children or 0.5 percent of the total number of parent-respondents.

Additionally, the table reveals that one hundred one or 44.8 percent of the respondents were living in an urban area. Eighty-three or 44.9 percent of the respondents were settling in rural areas, and 1 or 0.5 percent of the respondents were living in suburban areas.

Parental age has been a crucial determinant of access to support services for parents of children with developmental disabilities. Older parents are more likely to report low satisfaction, sadness, and depressive emotions, which may occasionally impede their access to various support services for their children with developmental disabilities (Hoyle et al., 2019). Moreover, gender disparity among parents also influences the accessibility of support services for children with intellectual disabilities. Novak and Končar (2022) revealed that the level of cooperative relationships with parents improves, and that males are statistically substantially less engaged in support groups than mothers.

If a child has intellectual disabilities, parents must be involved in their child’s education. However, poor engagement, insufficient resources, and inadequate communication between parents and teachers impede their success (Alulima & Chiluisa, 2024). This underscores the critical importance of robust partnerships between parents and educators, particularly in the context of enhancing the support services available to these types of students. Moreover, individuals with diverse classifications of intellectual disability require distinct support services (Bećarević et al., 2019). This indicates that it is crucial to evaluate the learners’ degree of intellectual disability to deliver appropriate interventions and support services.

Socioeconomic Profile of the Respondents

Table 3 Socioeconomic Profile of the Respondents

This part presents the socioeconomic profile of the respondents, encompassing four key dimensions: parents’ highest educational attainment, primary sources of household income, estimated combined family income, and type of housing. This socioeconomic profile provides essential context for understanding the respondents’ living conditions and potential influences on their socio-cultural and economic experiences.

The table discloses that the majority of the respondents earned a college-level education, constituting 43 or 23.2 percent. The most frequent category is high school level and high school graduate, each accounting for 38 respondents, or 20.5 percent each. Twenty-eight or 15.1 percent of the parents earned their college degree. Twenty-seven or 14.16 percent of the respondents have an elementary level education, and eleven or 5.9 percent have earned their elementary education.

The table reveals that one hundred thirty-nine or 75.1 percent of the respondents set salary as the primary source of income. Seventeen or 9.2 percent of the respondents stated that the source of income is business. Nine or 4.9 percent of the respondents rely on lending.

Five or 2.7 percent depend on farming as their source of income. Three or 1.6 percent of the respondents rely on their pensions. While hog raising, being a housewife, rental property, and being a rider, as a source of income, accounting for 2 or 1.1 percent each category, and being a nail technician (manicurist), savings account interest, through allowance, and laundry services, accounting for 1 or 0.5 percent each category.

As shown in the table, the estimated combined family monthly income of parent-respondents had one hundred six or 57.3 percent, of them earn a range of less than Php 9,520 a month. Fifty-five or 29.7 percent of the parent-respondents earn a monthly range of Php 9,520 – Php 19,040. Thirteen or 7 percent of the parent-respondents earn a monthly range of Php 19,040 – Php 38,080. Ten or 5.4 percent of them earn a monthly amount ranging from Php 38,080 – Php 66,640 and one or 0.5 percent of the parent-respondents earn a monthly income ranging from Php 66,640 – Php 114,200.

As reflected on the table that most common type of housing for the parent-respondent falls under the category “Owned”, that is one hundred thirty-five or 73 percent of the total number of respondents, twenty-eight or 15.1 percent had “Rented”, while twenty or 10.8 percent were settling in an “Informal space”, and two or 1.1 percent of the total number of parent-respondents where under “Government housing”.

Parents’ socioeconomic profiles significantly impact their access to support services for their children with intellectual disability. Parents possessing higher educational attainment and better financial stability have distinct expectations about formal support compared to those with low educational qualifications and lesser income (Šarčević-Ivić-Hofman & Wagner, 2023).

The findings indicate that socioeconomic factors significantly influence parents’ ability to assist their children with disabilities, underscoring the necessity for customized interventions and support systems that account for these characteristics to improve outcomes for both parents and children.

Likewise, higher socioeconomic status of parents correlates with enhanced parental well-being, improved access to resources, and increased support services (Pv & SuphalaKotian, 2023). In contrast, parents of children with intellectual disabilities exhibited greater unfavorable attitudes towards their children when residing in rural areas, possessing a lower socioeconomic level, and having less education (Mukherjee et al., 2025). These findings underscore the necessity for customized support networks and treatments to address the specific needs of low-income families.

Parental Knowledge on Available Support Services

Parental knowledge of available support services plays a crucial role in ensuring that children with intellectual disabilities receive appropriate interventions and resources. Awareness of government and private programs, understanding eligibility requirements, and knowing where to seek assistance are vital factors that influence service utilization.

Table 4 Parental Knowledge on Available Support Services

Note: 4.21-5.00-Strongly Agree, 3.41-4.20-Agree, 2.61-3.40-Neutral, 1.81-2.60-Disagree, 1.00-1.80-Strongly Disagree

Such knowledge not only empowers parents to make informed decisions but also facilitates timely access to educational, health, and community-based support. In this study, the respondents’ level of awareness and understanding was assessed across several indicators, highlighting both the strengths and areas where information dissemination could be further improved.

This portion presents the respondents’ level of knowledge regarding available support services for children with intellectual disabilities, their weighted mean, and corresponding verbal description. The data cover various aspects, including awareness of government and private or NGO-provided services, sources of information, confidence in one’s knowledge, understanding of eligibility requirements, and knowledge of appropriate contact points for service access.

Based on the table, the statement “I am aware of government support services for children with intellectual disabilities” obtained the highest weighted mean of 4.24 with a standard deviation of 0.88, which implies that the respondents strongly agree on the statement, suggesting that parents are most familiar with the government-provided services.

The statement “I learned about support services through schools, health centers, or community workers” obtained the second highest weighted mean of 4.17 with a standard deviation of 0.90, which can be verbally interpreted as “Agree”. The third statement, which obtained the highest weighted mean, is “I am aware of private or NGO-provided services in my area” with a weighted mean of 3.99 at a standard deviation of 1.00 which implies that the respondents agree on the statement.

Moreover, the statement “I understand the eligibility requirements of the services provided” obtained a weighted mean of 3.92 with a standard deviation of 0.96, which implies that the respondents agree with the statement. This suggests that the parents are aware of the eligibility requirements for the provision of social support services for their children with intellectual disabilities.

The statement “I am confident in my knowledge of available services for my child” obtained a weighted mean of 3.91 with a standard deviation of 1.04, implying that the respondents agree on the statement that they are confident with their knowledge of the available support services for their children.

On the other hand, the statement “I know where to go or whom to contact when my child needs services” got a weighted mean of 3.86 with a standard deviation of 1.12, which implies that the respondents agree to the statement.

Furthermore, the table discloses that the overall weighted mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of 1.00 belongs to the “Agree” category, indicating that the parents generally feel informed and aware of the available support services for children with intellectual disabilities.

Parental engagement in offering emotional, decision-making, and educational support is crucial for the development of students with intellectual disabilities (Emping et al., 2025). This underscores the essential roles of parents in supporting the educators of children with intellectual disability. The provision of support services to these children is not solely the responsibility of the teacher, necessitating a deeper partnership with parents as well.

Furthermore, understanding of early support services is essential for prompt intervention, with elevated parental education levels associated with improved awareness (Šarčević-Ivić-Hofman & Wagner, 2023). When parents are informed about the support resources available for their children with intellectual disabilities, they can implement individualized and responsive interventions that enhance their child’s development and parents’ well-being (Ranta et al., 2024).

Extent of Parental Access to Support Services

Parental access to support services is a critical factor in promoting the development, well-being, and inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities. Access to resources such as special education, therapy, healthcare, financial aid, psychosocial support, and transportation enables families to address the child’s needs holistically.

Table 5 Extent of Parental Access to Support Services

Note: 4.21-5.00-Strongly Agree, 3.41-4.20-Agree, 2.61-3.40-Neutral, 1.81-2.60-Disagree, 1.00-1.80-Strongly Disagree

However, the extent of such access may vary depending on service availability, affordability, and geographic reach. Assessing parental access provides valuable insights into the adequacy and responsiveness of existing programs, as well as identifying areas where gaps and barriers persist. In this study, the extent of access was measured across several key indicators to determine the degree to which families can obtain and utilize these essential services.

This part presents the extent of parental access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities, covering various forms of assistance such as special education, therapy, healthcare, financial aid, psychosocial support, transportation, and overall service accessibility.

Table 5 presents the extent of parental access to support services, its weighted mean, and its corresponding verbal description. Based on the table, the statement “My child receives special education services as needed” obtained the highest weighted mean of 4.08 with a standard deviation of 1.02, which implies that the respondents agree with the statement. The majority of the respondents agreed that their child with intellectual disability receives special education services appropriate to their needs.

The second statement that obtained the second-highest weighted mean is the statement “We receive financial assistance for my child’s needs” with a weighted mean of 3.27 and a standard deviation of 1.26, which implies that the respondents were neutral to the statement. On the other hand, the statement “My child has access to appropriate healthcare or medical support” obtained a weighted mean of 3.22 with a standard deviation of 1.29, suggesting that the respondents were neutral with the statement.

The statement “My child has regular access to therapy (speech, occupational, behavioral)” received a weighted mean of 3.07 with a standard deviation of 1.40, indicating respondents were neutral with the said statement. Lastly, the statement “My child receives psychosocial or counseling support” garnered a weighted mean of 3.02 with a standard deviation of 1.36, which indicates that the respondents were neutral towards the statement.

Moreover, the statement “The support services for my child are easily accessible” obtained a weighted mean of 3.03 with a standard deviation of 1.29, which infers that the respondents were neutral towards the statement. Lastly, the statement “My child receives psychosocial or counseling support” obtained a weighted mean of 3.02 with a standard deviation of 1.36, which implies that the respondents were neutral to the statement. In general, the table shows that the overall weighted mean is 3.24, and a relatively high standard deviation of 1.33 across the indicators shows notable variation in experiences among parents, which falls under the “Neutral” category.

Parental access to support services for children with learning disabilities is essential for promoting a holistic approach to special education, requiring robust collaboration between schools and parents. Parents of children with learning disabilities encounter considerable difficulties in obtaining suitable support services due to financial problems, limitations in transportation, and time constraints (Alba, 2024). Parental misconceptions regarding disability can obstruct the provision of learning support, underscoring the necessity for parental empowerment via psycho-education (Mabaso, 2024). Enhancing the lives of parents and children with learning disabilities necessitates facilitating access to essential support services.

Furthermore, parental engagement fosters a conducive learning atmosphere, enhances students’ confidence, motivation, and academic performance in addressing learning challenges, and provides essential support and encouragement. A robust relationship between parents and teachers is vital for creating a supportive educational environment that addresses the specific needs of these students (Ybañez et al., 2024).

Parental Barriers to Accessing Support Services

Parental barriers to accessing support services represent critical challenges that can hinder the timely and effective provision of assistance for children with intellectual disabilities.

Table 6 Parental Barriers to Accessing Support Services

Note: 4.21-5.00-Strongly Agree, 3.41-4.20-Agree, 2.61-3.40-Neutral, 1.81-2.60-Disagree, 1.00-1.80-Strongly Disagree

These barriers may stem from financial constraints, geographical distance, limited information, service inefficiencies, or social factors such as stigma and discrimination. Such obstacles can reduce the likelihood of families obtaining essential educational, healthcare, and psychosocial interventions, ultimately impacting the child’s overall development and well-being.

Understanding these barriers is essential for policymakers, service providers, and community stakeholders to develop targeted strategies that improve accessibility, affordability, and inclusivity of support services. In this study, the extent and nature of these barriers were examined across multiple dimensions to identify the most pressing issues faced by parents.

The table presents the parental barriers to accessing support services for children with learning disabilities, its weighted mean, and its corresponding verbal description. Based on the table, the statement “The cost of services prevents us from getting adequate support” obtained the highest weighted mean of 3.82 with a standard deviation of 1.10, which implies that the respondents agree that this is their barrier in accessing support services for their children.

Furthermore, the statement “My income level limits my ability to access quality services” obtained a weighted mean of 3.72 with a standard deviation of 1.03, which implies that the majority of the respondents agree on the statement. The statement “Distance or location of services makes them difficult to access” obtained a weighted mean of 3.69 with a standard deviation of 1.15, while the statement “Waiting times for services are too long” garnered a weighted mean of 3.68 with a standard deviation of 1.22.

Moreover, the statement “My work or household schedule prevents me from attending appointments” obtained a weighted mean of 3.56 with a standard deviation of 1.19 while the statement “I lack sufficient information about where to find support services” garnered a weighted mean of 3.49 with a standard deviation of 1.11 which implies that the respondents agreed to both statements.

Meanwhile, the statement “I have experienced stigma or negative attitudes when accessing services” obtained a weighted mean of 3.48 with a standard deviation of 1.15, which implies that the respondents agreed to the statement. On the other hand, the statement “I have been denied access to services due to financial reasons” gained a weighted mean of 3.41 with a standard deviation of 1.11 which implies that the respondents were neutral towards the statement.

Furthermore, the statement “My educational background makes it difficult to navigate the support system obtained a weighted mean of 3.37 with a standard deviation of 1.16, which implies that the respondents were neutral to the statement. Lastly, the statement “Language or reading difficulties hinder me from understanding service options” gained a weighted mean of 3.23 with a standard deviation of 1.17, which suggests that the respondents were neutral towards the statement. In general, the table reflected that the parent-respondents disclosed that they “Agree” with the statements that can be found on the parental barriers to support services for children with intellectual disabilities, with the overall weighted mean of 3.54, and a relative standard deviation of 1.15.

Parents of children with intellectual disabilities encounter numerous challenges in securing support services. Financial limitations constituted a major obstacle to obtaining treatment for children with intellectual disabilities (Osborn et al., 2019).

This aligns with the findings of Mkabile and Swartz (2020), which indicated that caregivers and parents of children with intellectual disabilities refrained from utilizing intellectual disability services due to financial constraints, tenuous care networks, opportunity costs, community stigma, safety concerns, lack of confidence in services, feelings of powerlessness in effecting change, and self-stigmatization.

Additionally, parents in underserved communities face further challenges stemming from limited education, social prejudice, and a lack of awareness about available resources (Oranga et al., 2022). These findings underscore the necessity for augmented community-level interventions, family empowerment, and policy enhancements to improve access to support services.

Significant Relationship Between Parental Knowledge on Available Support Services and Selected Profile Variables

Examining the relationship between parental knowledge of available support services and selected profile variables provides valuable insights into the factors that influence awareness and understanding of resources for children with intellectual disabilities. Profile characteristics such as educational attainment, income level, and type of housing may shape parents’ exposure to information, their ability to navigate service systems, and their confidence in accessing assistance.

Identifying significant associations between these variables can help determine which groups may require targeted information dissemination and capacity-building initiatives. In this study, statistical analysis was conducted to assess whether variations in parental knowledge were significantly related to specific socioeconomic and demographic factors, thereby offering evidence-based guidance for enhancing service outreach and inclusivity.

A Chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine the relationship between gender and knowledge group, as seen in Table 7. The knowledge variable was regrouped into two categories: low knowledge (Strongly Disagree to Neutral) and high knowledge (Agree to Strongly Agree) to satisfy the assumptions of the test. The results indicated that the association between gender and knowledge group was not statistically significant, x²(1, N = 185) = 1.64, p = .200.

This suggests that the distribution of knowledge levels (low vs. high) does not differ significantly between males and females. The association between civil status and knowledge group was not statistically significant, x²(2, N = 185) = 1.40, p = .495. This suggests that the level of knowledge (low vs. high) does not differ significantly among respondents with different civil status categories (live-in, married, or single parent/separated).

Furthermore, the results indicated that there was no statistically significant association between the child’s intellectual disability classification and parental knowledge group, x²(2, N = 185) = 1.91, p = .385. This suggests that parental knowledge levels (low vs. high) do not vary significantly based on the child’s classification of intellectual disability. It also showed that the association between location and knowledge group was not statistically significant, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.44, p = .505.

This suggests that the distribution of knowledge levels (low vs. high) does not differ significantly between respondents living in rural and urban-suburban areas.

Moreover, the table also revealed a statistically significant association between parents’ highest educational attainment and the knowledge group, x²(2, N = 185) = 9.79, p = .008.

This result suggests that parental knowledge levels differ significantly across educational attainment groups. Notably, a higher proportion of parents with college-level or graduate education (64 out of 71, or 90.1%) are in the high knowledge group, compared to high school graduates (54 out of 76, or 71.1%) and elementary graduates (33 out of 38, or 86.8%).

This indicates that higher educational attainment tends to be associated with greater knowledge of support services.

On the other hand, the table showed that the association between sources of income and the knowledge group was not statistically significant, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.39, p = .533. This indicates that the level of knowledge (low vs. high) does not differ significantly between respondents with employment-based income and those relying on business, self-employment, or passive income.

Meanwhile, the results showed that there is no statistically significant association between monthly income and knowledge group, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.04, p = .842. This indicates that the distribution of knowledge levels (low vs. high) does not significantly vary across respondents with different monthly income levels.

Moreover, the table also indicates a statistically significant association between the type of housing and the knowledge group, x²(1, N = 185) = 18.80, p < .001. This suggests that the respondents’ housing situation is significantly related to their level of knowledge regarding support services. A larger proportion of respondents living in owned housing (Group 1) are classified under the high knowledge group (119 out of 135, or 88.1%).

In contrast, those living in rented, informal, or government housing have a higher proportion of respondents with low knowledge levels compared to homeowners. This trend might indicate that stable living conditions (such as owning a home) could be associated with better access to information and resources about support services.

Table 7 Test of Significant Relationship Between Parental Knowledge on Available Support Services and Selected Profile Variables

Note: p < .05 indicates a statistically significant correlation.

Support services for parents of children with disabilities are crucial in fostering holistic care for child development.  Inadequate replies concerning parental supported services for children, along with the relationship outcomes, indicate a substantial correlation between supportive services and certain demographic features (Al-Kafajy & Al-Dorie, 2024).

García-González et al. (2021) emphasized the communication shortcomings between schools, government bodies, and non-governmental organizations, which led to disjointed support systems for families.

Additionally, a statistically significant disparity exists in the expectations for formal support among parents of children with developmental disabilities, contingent upon two sociodemographic factors: self-assessed financial well-being and educational attainment (Šarčević-Ivić-Hofman & Wagner, 2023). This underscores that parental demographics affect their access to diverse support resources for children with intellectual disability.

Significant Relationship Between Extent of Parental Access to Support Services

The analysis on the Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Parental Access to Support Services aims to determine whether the degree to which parents can access available assistance is meaningfully linked to other relevant variables.

This section explores the correlation between parents’ level of access and factors that may influence or be influenced by such access, such as socioeconomic status, knowledge of available programs, and existing support networks.

By examining these relationships, the study seeks to identify patterns that may inform strategies for improving service delivery, ensuring equitable access, and addressing barriers that hinder parents from obtaining the support necessary for the well-being and development of their children.

A Chi-square test of independence was conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between gender and access group, as seen in Table 8. The results revealed that the association between gender and access group was not statistically significant, x²(1, N = 185) = 1.83, p = .176. . This indicates that the distribution of access levels (low vs. high) does not differ significantly between males and females.

It also indicated that the association between civil status and the access group was not statistically significant, x²(2, N = 185) = 0.65, p = .723. This suggests that the distribution of access levels (low vs. high) does not differ significantly among respondents with different civil status categories (live-in, married, or single parent/separated).

Furthermore, the table revealed a statistically significant association between the child’s intellectual disability classification and access group, x²(2, N = 185) = 6.29, p = 0.43.

Table 8 Test of Significant Relationship Between Extent of Parental Access to Support Services

*Note: p < .05 indicates a statistically significant correlation

This indicates that parental access levels (low vs. high) vary significantly based on the classification of the child’s intellectual disability.

Notably, parents of children with mild disabilities are more likely to report higher access levels compared to those with moderate or profound-severe disabilities. The results also showed that the association between location and access group was not statistically significant, x²(1, N = 185) = 1.94, p = .164.

This suggests that the distribution of access levels (low vs. high) does not significantly differ between respondents living in rural and urban areas. On the other hand, the results revealed no statistically significant association between parents’ highest educational attainment (elementary, high school, college/graduate level) and the parental access group, x²(2, N = 185) = 1.94, p = .379. This suggests that parents’ access levels to support services (low vs. high) do not significantly vary across different educational attainment levels.

Additionally, the table also revealed that there is no statistically significant association between income sources and the access group, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.60, p = .438. This suggests that whether a respondent’s income is employment-based or derived from business/self-employment does not significantly affect their access level (low vs. high). On the other hand, the results indicated that the association between monthly income and access group was not statistically significant, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.73, p = .392.

This suggests that access levels (low vs. high) to support services do not differ significantly across respondents with varying income levels. With regards to the association between type of housing (owned, rented, or informal/government housing) and access group (low vs. high access), the results indicate that the association is not statistically significant, x²(2, N = 185) = 4.16, p = .125. This suggests that the type of housing (owned, rented, or informal/government) does not have a significant effect on whether respondents have low or high access to support services. Based on the table, only the child’s intellectual disability shows a statistically significant association with parents’ level of access to support services. Access to resources and strong social support are essential for the well-being of both children with intellectual disabilities and their parents.

However, concerns about a child’s development often prompt evaluations and assessments, which can create feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for parents. During these periods, the role of parental advocacy becomes extremely important (Diamond & Adam, 2023). Research also shows that early access to support is linked to factors such as child physical health, adaptive abilities, caregiver ethnicity, informal support, and formal recognition of special educational needs (Sapiets et al., 2023).

This suggests that a child’s degree of intellectual disability may affect their access to support services tailored to their specific learning requirements. Hence, identifying intellectual disability (ID) in students is essential for delivering suitable educational support and interventions.

McKenzie et al. (2023) indicated that a primary reason for missed or delayed identification was insufficient understanding of intellectual disability.  This knowledge is vital for parents in providing adequate care for their child to have access to support services, especially when developmental difficulties arise.

Significant Relationship Between Parental Barriers to Support Services Access and Selected Profile Variables

The section on the Significant Relationship Between Parental Barriers to Support Services Access and Selected Profile Variables examines how specific demographic and personal characteristics of parents relate to the challenges they encounter in obtaining needed assistance.

This analysis seeks to determine whether factors such as age, educational attainment, employment status, and income level are significantly associated with the nature and extent of barriers faced, including financial constraints, limited information, or logistical difficulties.

Understanding these relationships provides valuable insights for tailoring interventions, reducing obstacles, and ensuring that support services are more accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of families.

A Chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine the relationship between gender and barrier group as depicted in Table 9. The barrier variable was regrouped into two categories: low barriers (Strongly Disagree to Neutral) and high barriers (Agree to Strongly Agree), to satisfy the assumptions of the test.

The results showed that there was no statistically significant association between gender and barrier group, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.85, p = .356. This finding suggests that the distribution of barrier levels (low vs. high) does not significantly differ between males and females.

Table 9 Test of Significant Relationship Between Parental Barriers to Support Services Access and Selected Profile Variables

*Note: p < .05 indicates a statistically significant correlation.

On the other hand, the association between civil status and barrier group was not statistically significant, x²(2, N = 185) = 2.71, p = .258.

This indicates that the distribution of barrier levels (low vs. high) does not significantly vary across respondents with different civil status categories (live-in, married, or single parent/separated).

Moreover, the results indicated that the association between the child’s intellectual disability classification and barrier group was not statistically significant, x²(2, N = 185) = 4.93, p = .0.85. This suggests that reported barrier levels (low vs. high) do not differ significantly across the different classifications of the child’s intellectual disability.

On the other hand, it also showed a statistically significant association between the location of residence and barrier group, x²(1, N = 185) = 22.08, p < .001. This finding suggests that the distribution of barrier levels (low vs. high) differs significantly between rural and urban respondents. Urban respondents reported a much higher proportion of low barriers (61 out of 102, or 59.8%) compared to rural respondents (21 out of 83, or 25.3%).

Conversely, rural respondents are more concentrated in the high barrier group (62 out of 83, or 74.7%) than urban respondents (41 out of 102, or 40.2%). This suggests that parents in rural areas experience greater challenges or barriers in accessing support services compared to those in urban areas. Additionally, the results revealed a statistically significant association between parents’ highest educational attainment (elementary, high school, college/graduate level) and parental barrier group, x²(2, N = 185) = 25.56, p < .001.

The findings indicate that perceived barriers vary significantly with educational attainment. Among parents with a college-level or graduate education, a larger proportion falls into the low barrier group (45 out of 71, or 63.4%) compared to elementary level/graduates, where the majority are in the high barrier group (33 out of 38, or 86.8%). High school level/graduates show a more balanced distribution, with 32 in low barriers (42.1%) and 44 in high barriers (57.9%). This suggests that higher educational attainment is associated with fewer perceived barriers to accessing support services.

Also, a Chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine the association between sources of income and barrier group. The income sources were grouped into: Group 1: Salary and employment-based income (Salary, Rider, Housewife, Manicurist, Washing clothes), Group 2: Business/self-employment and passive income (Business, Farming, Hog Raising, Lending, Rental property, Pension, Savings account interest, Allowance).

The results showed no statistically significant association between sources of income and barrier group, x²(1, N = 185) = 0.21, p = .648. This indicates that the type of income source (employment-based vs. business/passive) does not significantly affect whether respondents experience high or low barriers in accessing support services.

On the other hand, the results indicated a statistically significant association between monthly income and barrier group, x²(1, N = 185) = 5.71, p = .017. This finding suggests that respondents’ perceived barriers to accessing support services vary significantly depending on their income level.

Specifically, a greater proportion of respondents with higher monthly income (Group 2) are in the low-barrier group (43 out of 79, or 54.4%), while a majority of those with lower income (Group 1) fall into the high-barrier group (67 out of 106, or 63.2%). This suggests that respondents with higher monthly income are more likely to report low barriers, while those with lower income are more represented in the high-barrier group.

A Chi-square test of independence was used to investigate the association between home type (owned, rented, or informal/government housing) and barrier group (low vs. high barriers).  The findings demonstrate that the correlation is not statistically significant, χ²(2, N = 185) = 0.99, p = .609.  This indicates that the dwelling type does not significantly influence respondents’ experiences of low or high obstacles to receiving support services.

Parental obstacles to accessing support services underscore various essential factors influencing program utilization. A lower family income correlated with an increased number of reported obstacles for parents seeking assistance services for their children with learning disabilities (Wallace-Watkin et al., 2023).  This shows that being poor not only means having less money, but it also makes it harder for parents to access support services for their children.

In addition to their financial situation, parents’ level of education also affects how easy it is for them to get help for their kids with learning difficulties.  Parental participation can enhance the social skills of learners with intellectual disabilities, provided that parents possess adequate educational and social skills to support social skills instruction (Benitez et al., 2020), because of this, parents of kids with ID  who have more education are more likely to have greater social skills that aid their children with ID (Mukherjee et al., 2025).

CONCLUSIONS

The study underscores significant demographic, socioeconomic, and experiential trends among parents of children with intellectual disability. Most of the people who answered were married, lived in cities, and were in their thirties. Most kids with intellectual problems had modest ones. Many parents only had one child, and most of them had their own homes. Most of them worked for pay, but a lot of them made less than the minimum wage.

The results show that parents generally felt informed and aware of the support services that were available. However, their access to these services was more neutral, which suggests that they may not have used them as much.  Even though they knew about them, parents still thought there were barriers to getting services.  The analysis also showed that the level of education of parents and the type of home they lived in had a big effect on how much they knew about support services.

Also, the severity level of a child’s intellectual disability was strongly linked to how much they used support services.  The barriers parents faced in obtaining support were closely linked to where they lived, how much education they had, and how much money they made each month.

In general, the results show that people are aware of the services that are available, but there are still problems with access.  Socioeconomic and demographic factors—especially education, income, and where they live—have a big impact on how well parents can get to and use support systems for their kids.

RECOMMENDATIONS

First, it is suggested that an action plan be formulated to enhance access to support services for children with intellectual disabilities from various backgrounds. These tailored treatments will attempt to provide parents with access to diverse support resources to enhance collaboration between academia, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, health centers,  community leaders, and households for their child’s holistic development.

Second, to enhance collaboration between schools, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, health centers,  community leaders, and families, parents of children with learning difficulties should be informed about their roles and responsibilities as partners through various conferences that specifically focus on addressing the various needs of learners with IDs.

Third, it is recommended that the Department of Education, in partnership with NGOs, LGUs, and other government agencies, enhance its initiatives to promote quality education for students with special learning needs. By working together, these stakeholders can create more inclusive learning environments that support the growth and potential of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Lastly, a relevant study is recommended to explore other perspectives on various access support services for learners with intellectual disabilities and recommend the use of the output of the study which is the action plan for equitable access for support services for children with intellectual disabilities.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Kafajy, N. a. S. S. K., & Al-Dorie, N. M. (2024). Relationship between Supportive Services of Parents with Children Disabilities. Medical Journal of Babylon, 21(4), 1014–1018. https://tinyurl.com/va8amjzd
2. Alba, F. N. (2024). Convergence and Engagement Opportunities for Parents of Children with Learning Disabilities as a Foundation of Organizational Mission. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024. https://tinyurl.com/ytwhdbjr
3. Alulima, L. D. A., & Chiluisa, L. M. M. (2024). The Impact of the Role of Parents on the Learning of Students with Intellectual Disabilities. International Journal of Religion, 5(11), 6337–6347. https://tinyurl.com/439rms6s
4. Azmi, N. & Basir, S. (2020). Ratifikasi Konvensyen Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu terhadap Hak Orang Kurang Upaya: Implikasi dan Realiti dari Dimensi Perundangan dan Kesamarataan. Kanun: Jurnal Undang-undang Malaysia. 32. 297-319. 10.37052/kanun.32(2)no6. https://tinyurl.com/35k4cff3
5. Benitez, P. & Kirchner, L., Ribeiro, G. & Tatmatsu, D. (2020). Educational Social Skills of parents of children with and without Intellectual Disability. Psico-USF. 25. 415-424. 10.1590/1413-82712020250302. https://tinyurl.com/3ruaetzk
6. Bratan, T., Fischer, P., Maia, M. & Aschmann, V. (2020). Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Comparison of Four European Countries with Regards to Assistive Technologies. Societies. 10. 10.3390/soc10040074. https://tinyurl.com/cpat3dx8
7. Buchner, T., Shevlin, M., O’Donovan, M. A., Förster, M., Goll, H., Šiška, J., Janyskova, K., Smogorzewska, J., Grzegorz, S., Vlachou, A., Demo, H., Feyerer, E. & Corby, D. (2020). Same Progress for All? Inclusive Education, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and Students With Intellectual Disability in European Countries. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 18. 10.1111/jppi.12368. https://tinyurl.com/2p4kew8a
8. Chibaya, G., Govender, P. & Naidoo, D. (2021). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Implementation: Perspectives of Persons with Disabilities in Namibia. Occupational Therapy International. 2021. 1-17. 10.1155/2021/6693141. https://tinyurl.com/mt4vx2dp
9. Diamond, R. M., & Adam, B. E. (Eds.). (2023). The disciplines speak I: Rewarding the scholarly, professional, and creative work of faculty. Taylor & Francis. https://tinyurl.com/5a92bt8y
10. Emping, M. L., Ting, M. S. & Pub, A. (2025). Parental Involvement, Social Support, and Accessibility of Community Resources for Children with Intellectual Disabilities at Division of Calamba City. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation. 06. 1230-1240. 10.54660/.IJMRGE.2025.6.2.1230-1240. https://tinyurl.com/36tm7s2v
11. García-González, J. M., Gutiérrez Gómez-Calcerrada, S., Solera Hernández, E., & Ríos-Aguilar, S. (2021). Barriers in higher education: Perceptions and discourse analysis of students with disabilities in Spain. Disability & Society, 36(4), 579-595. https://tinyurl.com/5mct44zd
12. Hoyle, J., Laditka, J. N., & Laditka, S. B. (2019). CARING FOR CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES: WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES FOR HEALTH IN AGING? Innovation in Aging, 3(Supplement_1), S486. https://tinyurl.com/4meyur23
13. Liu, H. (2023). Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In book: China’s Path of Human Rights Development. 10.1007/978-981-16-3981-4_8. https://tinyurl.com/mrxtvek7
14. Martínez-Medina, A., Calvo, S., Rodríguez, V., Meseguer-Sánchez, V. & Molina-Moreno, V. (2022). Sixteen Years since the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: What Have We Learned since Then?. International journal of environmental research and public health. 19. 10.3390/ijerph191811646. https://tinyurl.com/vsfkfkdn
15. McKenzie, K., Tanfield, Y., Murray, G., & Sandhu, R. (2023). Facilitating the identification of intellectual disability in schools: A qualitative study of stakeholder views. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 37(1). https://tinyurl.com/4hssyuys
16. Mkabile, S., & Swartz, L. (2020). ‘I Waited for It until Forever’: Community Barriers to Accessing Intellectual Disability Services for Children and Their Families in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8504. https://tinyurl.com/rf97n9bf
17. Mukherjee S., Bhowmick A., Mitra N. A comparative study of parental attitude towards their children with intellectual disability based on educational qualification, financial background and region. Int J Multidiscip Trends 2025;7(1):23-26. https://tinyurl.com/2m7fc9ct
18. Nally, D., Moore, S. & Gowran, R. (2021). How governments manage personal assistance schemes in response to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Scoping Review. Disability & Society. 37. 1-24. 10.1080/09687599.2021.1877114. https://tinyurl.com/mvd2ktcp
19. Novak, M., & Končar, M. (2022). Role of gender and age in the cooperation between parents of people with intellectual disabilities and professional staff in care centres. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, 1(1), 1–14. https://tinyurl.com/2cfh5cnm
20. O’Mahony, C. & Quinlivan, S. (2020). The rights of people with disabilities. International Human Rights, Social Policy &amp; Global. Book chapter. Published 1 April 2020. https://tinyurl.com/3w8djdpm
21. Oranga, J., Meshack, E. & Boinnet, F. (2022). Barriers to Parental Involvement in the Education of Learners with Intellectual Disabilities. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 10. 10.4236/jss.2022.102029. https://tinyurl.com/yc2tyv96
22. Osborn, R., Roberts, L., & Kneebone, I. (2019). Barriers to accessing mental health treatment for parents of children with intellectual disabilities: a preliminary study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(16), 2311–2317. https://tinyurl.com/a248prsp
23. Pv, A. H., & SuphalaKotian. (2023). Role of socio-economic status on psychological well-being among parents of intellectually disabled children. International Journal of Applied Research, 9(8), 10–16. https://tinyurl.com/5c7eyrrh
24. Ranta, K., Saarimäki, H., Gummerus, J., Virtanen, J., Peltomäki, S., & Kontu, E. (2024). Psychological interventions for parents of children with intellectual disabilities to enhance child behavioral outcomes or parental well-being: A systematic review, content analysis and effects. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 29(2), 500-535. https://tinyurl.com/25r79wnv
25. Republic Act No. 11650 (2022). An Act instituting a policy of inclusion and services for learners with disabilities in support of inclusive education, establishing inclusive learning resource centers of learners with disabilities, institutionalizing support mechanisms, providing for standards, appropriating funds therefor, and for other purposes. https://tinyurl.com/yn9yb6ep
26. Republic Act No. 7277. (1992). An Act providing for the rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance of disabled persons and their integration into the mainstream of society and for other purposes. https://tinyurl.com/mytxhjuw
27. Roaldsnes, A. (2024). Social capital and the intergenerational transmission of cultural capital: How parents’ social networks influence children’s accumulation of cultural capital. Poetics. https://tinyurl.com/47rcu5sb
28. Rozinskis, R, & Rourke, C. (2024). Challenging Involuntary Treatment and Confinement in Canada Through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). DOI: https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v18i3.4246. https://tinyurl.com/mtp4pk9y
29. Russo, J. & Wooley, S. (2020). The Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: More Than Just Another Reform of Psychiatry. Health and Human Rights. 22. 151-161. https://tinyurl.com/3bs769s8
30. Sapiets, S. J., Hastings, R. P., & Totsika, V. (2023). Predictors of Access to Early Support in Families of Children with Suspected or Diagnosed Developmental Disabilities in the United Kingdom. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 54(4), 1628–1641. https://tinyurl.com/77c9x82y
31. Šarčević-Ivić-Hofman, K., & Wagner, J. (2023). Formal support: Expectations of parents of children with disabilities. Specijalna Edukacija I Rehabilitacija, 22(2), 117–133. https://tinyurl.com/mrx6zjfr
32. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://tinyurl.com/5aux9e78
33. Wallace-Watkin, C., Sigafoos, J., Woods, L., & Waddington, H. (2023). Parent reported barriers and facilitators to support services for autistic children in Aotearoa New Zealand. Autism, 136236132311682. https://tinyurl.com/3679yafn
34. Ybañez, Y., Ponce, J., Recaña, J., Cañete, J. J., Opingo, K. M., & Mangubat, R. (2024). Parental Engagement in Supporting Children with Learning Difficulties. British Journal of Teacher Education and Pedagogy, 3(2), 26–37. https://tinyurl.com/yeyw7sxc
35. Zeidan, J., Joseph, L., Camden, C., Shevell. M., Oskoui, M., Lamotte, P. & Shikako-Thomas, K. (2021). Look around me: environmental and socio-economic factors related to community participation for children with cerebral palsy in Québec. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics 2021; 41: 429–46. https://tinyurl.com/2kzakbyb