The Uptake of Secondary Prevention by Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention involves the early detection of disease while it is asymptomatic to prevent its progression. For adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, secondary prevention is critical as they may not have the ability to recognize the early signs and symptoms of disease or lack accessible information about these. METHODS: Linked administrative health and social service data were used to document uptake related to four secondary prevention guidelines among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Rates were compared to those from a general population sample representing the same age ranges. RESULTS: Of 22% of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities had a periodic health examination in a two-year period (compared to 26.4% of adults without intellectual and developmental disabilities). Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities were less likely to undergo recommended age and gender-specific screening for the three types of cancer studied (colorectal, breast and cervical). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ontario experience disparities in secondary prevention. As changes to primary care delivery and secondary prevention recommendations in the province and elsewhere continue to evolve, close monitoring of the impacts on adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities combined with dedicated efforts to increase access is warranted.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".