Health Inequity in People with Intellectual Disabilities: From Evidence to Action Applying an Appreciative Inquiry Approach
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: The current understanding of health inequities in people with intellectual disabilities does not readily translate into improvements in health status or health care. To identify opportunities for action, the 2013 IASSIDD health SIRG conference organized ten intensive workshops. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workshops each addressed separate topics, a workshop of self advocated was included as well. Workshop reports were analyzed using a qualitative thematical analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 134 participants attended the workshops. The analysis of the workshop reports resulted in three main themes: approach, know-how and visibility and a pervasive theme, that of person-centered support. CONCLUSION: Everyone that can contribute to better care should be empowered and facilitated to do so, environments should be accessible and inclusive in nature. Sharing experiences, expertise and data sources within and outside intellectual disabilities care and research were mentioned as ways forward. Strong (policy) visions, felt urgency and shared responsibility are required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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