Health and Psychiatric Disparities in Children with Cognitive and Developmental Delays: Implications for Health Policy in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Previous research on psychiatric and health disparities according to level of cognitive functioning has focused on adults within an American healthcare context. The current study compares children with and without cognitive and developmental delays in Quebec, Canada, using physician billing data from a longitudinal study of low‐income, francophone families. Canada is an ideal context for studying medical billing data as its equal access healthcare system removes many socioeconomic biases. Methods A large sample (n = 1050) of children is used to describe psychiatric and health disparities, as well as differences in Ambulatory Care Sensitive (ACS) conditions and primary healthcare, between children with (n = 107) and without (n = 943) diagnoses in their billing history indicative of delays. Results The findings demonstrated a relatively high level of psychiatric diagnoses for children with delays. However, no difference was found between children with and without delays in regard to emergency room visits and hospitalizations for ACS conditions and primary healthcare. Conclusions The findings suggest that, within a universal healthcare system, disparities in primary healthcare may not emerge until adulthood in individuals with delay status.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".