Prevalence and Correlates of Pica Among Adults with Intellectual Disability in Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased knowledge of complex behaviors such as pica is needed to improve the support and services in the community for individuals with intellectual disability (ID). Though the prevalence of pica has been documented extensively in institutionalized settings, few studies have explored its etiology. The aim of this study is to explore the correlates of pica among institutionalized adults with ID. Secondary data analysis was performed on census-level data on 1,008 persons with ID residing in Ontario's remaining specialized institutions. All persons had been assessed using the interRAI Intellectual Disability (interRAI ID; Martin, Hirdes, Fries, & Smith, 2007 Martin, L., Hirdes, J. P., Fries, B. E and Smith, T. F. 2007. Development and psychometric properties of an assessment for persons with intellectual disability—The interRAI ID. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 4(1): 23–29. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) assessment instrument—a comprehensive and standardized instrument that supports service planning. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore the relation between pica and demographic, functional, and clinical characteristics. The overall prevalence of pica was 21.8%. Logistic regression analysis showed that being male, a diagnosis of autism, and use of nonverbal means of communication were associated with a higher likelihood of pica, whereas impairment in activities of daily living reduced that likelihood. A curvilinear relation was observed between cognitive functioning and pica. The prevalence of pica is quite high in Ontario's institutions, and nonverbal communication emerged as the strongest correlate of the behavior. The implications for education, training, and interventions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".