Hospital Utilization among Persons with an Intellectual Disability, Ontario, Canada, 1995–2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It has been suggested that persons with an intellectual disability consume a disproportionate amount of hospital services. Policy changes in Ontario in the 1970s and 1980s made it necessary for community health services to accommodate this population that formerly received most of its medical care in the institutions where they lived. It is frequently suggested that community health services are currently inadequate to care for this population. Methods The study was a retrospective analysis of routinely collected hospitalization data for persons living in Ontario with an intellectual disability, between 1995 and 2001. Results A substantial proportion of hospitalizations of persons with an intellectual disability were for mental disorders and dental diseases. Of all in‐hospital stays, one‐third were for mental disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. Of all day‐surgery admissions, almost 40% were for dental diseases corresponding to a high rate of dental procedures. The study also identified high ambulatory care‐sensitive condition hospitalization rates. In‐hospital surgical procedure rates, however, were low. Interpretation This study is the first to fully describe patterns of hospitalization for persons with an intellectual disability in Ontario, Canada. A recurring finding is the large discrepancy between statistics for persons with an intellectual disability and published data for the general population. The study limitations mean further research is required to confirm the results and to determine if persons with an intellectual disability are receiving the health care they are entitled to in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".