Primary care of adults with developmental disabilities: Canadian consensus guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update the 2006 Canadian guidelines for primary care of adults with developmental disabilities (DD) and to make practical recommendations based on current knowledge to address the particular health issues of adults with DD. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Knowledgeable health care providers participating in a colloquium and a subsequent working group discussed and agreed on revisions to the 2006 guidelines based on a comprehensive review of publications, feedback gained from users of the guidelines, and personal clinical experiences. Most of the available evidence in this area of care is from expert opinion or published consensus statements (level III). MAIN MESSAGE: Adults with DD have complex health issues, many of them differing from those of the general population. Good primary care identifies the particular health issues faced by adults with DD to improve their quality of life, to improve their access to health care, and to prevent suffering, morbidity, and premature death. These guidelines synthesize general, physical, behavioural, and mental health issues of adults with DD that primary care providers should be aware of, and they present recommendations for screening and management based on current knowledge that practitioners can apply. Because of interacting biologic, psychoaffective, and social factors that contribute to the health and well-being of adults with DD, these guidelines emphasize involving caregivers, adapting procedures when appropriate, and seeking input from a range of health professionals when available. Ethical care is also emphasized. The guidelines are formulated within an ethical framework that pays attention to issues such as informed consent and the assessment of health benefits in relation to risks of harm. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the guidelines proposed here would improve the health of adults with DD and would minimize disparities in health and health care between adults with DD and those in the general population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".