Parent views on enhancing the quality of health care for their children with fragile X syndrome, autism or Down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International research in recent years has begun to focus on the medical problems of individuals with intellectual disabilities and on family stress in accessing health services for persons with developmental disabilities. Less is known about the needs of individuals in different diagnostic groups, or about their experiences of systems of care. Therefore, we report the results of focus groups with parents of children or adults with fragile X syndrome, autism or Down syndrome. METHODS: Semi-structured group interviews with parents of children, youth or adults from each of three diagnostic groups probed perceptions of challenges and successes in obtaining and negotiating healthcare services in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Parents described diverse barriers to care, the need for advocacy in securing services, perceptions of service delivery and the role of healthcare professionals in regulating access to a wide range of services. Diagnostic services represented one area of central concern to parents from all three groups. DISCUSSION: Focus group data yielded a wide range of concerns. Suggestions for enhancing the system included expanding syndrome-specific education for medical students and health professionals and creating a centre that could offer service-related information for parents.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".