Use of health care guidelines in patients with Down syndrome by family physicians across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the occurrence of common medical and psychological conditions in individuals with Down syndrome during their life span, and to measure the use of the Down Syndrome Medical Interest Group's health care guidelines by family physicians across Canada, as reported by parents or caregivers. METHODS: The Down Syndrome Research Foundation sent a questionnaire to 314 families across Canada who were part of the Canadian Voluntary Registry on Down Syndrome. This questionnaire was designed to collect information from parents about physical examinations, laboratory tests, referrals and discussions with family physicians that are listed in the health care guidelines. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three families responded to the survey. The highest response rates were in families with children in the five- to 12-year-old age range (41.7%) and the 13- to 18-year-old age range (19.7%). The most common medical conditions reported were visual, hearing and cardiac related. A high percentage of sleep-, gastrointestinal- and thyroid-related conditions were also reported. In the adult group (ie, 30 years of age and older), there was a high proportion of depression and/or anxiety disorders reported. The percentage of those reporting physical examinations and medical referrals by family physicians were highest in the five- to 12-year-old age range and dropped below 50% in those aged 19 years and older. In the one- to four-year-old and five- to 12-year-old age groups, the percentages of those with Down syndrome referred for hearing tests and celiac screens were reported to be below 30%. The percentages of those reporting discussions on behavioural issues were below 50% in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physical examinations, as per the recommended guidelines, were followed only in the five- to 12-year-old age group. Many of the recommendations regarding discussion of behavioural problems, transition planning, diet, exercise and issues around puberty or sexual health were followed infrequently in all age groups. Further physician education about the guidelines is necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".