Randomized Control Trial of the 3Rs Health Knowledge Training Program for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience a wide range of health problems. Research is needed on teaching persons with intellectual disabilities about their health to promote self-advocacy. This study used a RCT to evaluate a health knowledge training program for adults with intellectual disabilities and verbal skills. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to training (n = 12) or no training control (n = 10) groups. Topics included key body organs, systems, functions, health maintenance and illnesses. Participants played a game answering questions (e.g. 'What does the heart do?'). Instruction involved visuals (e.g., PowerPoint slides), cueing, modelling and feedback. The control group received pre-, post- and follow-up tests as the training group. RESULTS: The training group had significantly higher overall post-test and follow-up health knowledge test scores than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Health knowledge training is one step in promoting health self-advocacy and better health in persons with intellectual disabilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it