ENHANCING PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING FOR ADULTS LIVING WITH DISABILITIES USING DYNAMIC ORGANIZATION CULTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review was conducted to establish the effectiveness of a dynamic organizational culture in enhancing person-centered planning (PCP) for adults living with disabilities. An in-depth search on PCP showed a major gap in research on the characteristics, and incentives for and barriers to a successful PCP. This is because most studies on PCP focus on practices, benefits and outcomes. An electronic literature search was conducted using search engines such as Rehabilitation Reference Center, ProQuest/Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Eric, PsychInfo and OVID. The search generated over 350 journal articles that discussed conditions and interventions related to the key words used in the search. One hundred and fifty articles were excluded due to duplication, and a total of 180 articles were dropped after reviewing their abstracts. The full texts of 20 journal articles were appraised to determine their importance to the adoption of dynamic organizational culture and the improvement of PCP for adults with disabilities. During further critical appraisal using Jadad and PEDro quality analysis scales, 11 articles with the poorest scores were excluded. This brought the total number of studies reviewed to nine. The results of the nine studies included in this review showed that a dynamic organizational culture may enhance PCP and improve the quality of care for adults living with disabilities.
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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".