MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137623631 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62026-7

The Confidential Inquiry into premature deaths of people with intellectual disabilities in the UK: a population-based study

2013· article· en· W2137623631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pauline Heslop, Peter S Blair, Peter Fleming, Matthew Hoghton, Anna Marriott, Lesley Russ

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsConfidentialityMedicineIntellectual disabilityQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationStatutory lawGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthLawPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Confidential Inquiry into premature deaths of people with intellectual disabilities in England was commissioned to provide evidence about contributory factors to avoidable and premature deaths in this population. METHODS: The population-based Confidential Inquiry reviewed the deaths of people with intellectual disabilities aged 4 years and older who had been registered with a general practitioner in one of five Primary Care Trust areas of southwest England, who died between June 1, 2010, and May 31, 2012. A network of health, social-care, and voluntary-sector services; community contacts; and statutory agencies notified the Confidential Inquiry of all deaths of people with intellectual disabilities and provided core data. The Office for National Statistics provided data about the coding of individual cause of death certificates. Deaths were described as avoidable (preventable or amenable), according to Office for National Statistics definitions. Contributory factors to deaths were identified and quantified by the case investigator, verified by a local review panel meeting, and agreed by the Confidential Inquiry overview panel. Contributory factors were grouped into four domains: intrinsic to the individual, within the family and environment, care provision, and service provision. The deaths of a comparator group of people without intellectual disabilities but much the same in age, sex, and cause of death and registered at the same general practices as those with intellectual disabilities were also investigated. FINDINGS: The Confidential Inquiry reviewed the deaths of 247 people with intellectual disabilities. Nearly a quarter (22%, 54) of people with intellectual disabilities were younger than 50 years when they died, and the median age at death was 64 years (IQR 52-75). The median age at death of male individuals with intellectual disabilities was 65 years (IQR 54-76), 13 years younger than the median age at death of male individuals in the general population of England and Wales (78 years). The median age at death of female individuals with intellectual disabilities was 63 years (IQR 54-75), 20 years younger than the median age at death for female individuals in the general population (83 years). Avoidable deaths from causes amenable to change by good quality health care were more common in people with intellectual disabilities (37%, 90 of 244) than in the general population of England and Wales (13%). Contributory factors to premature deaths in a subset of people with intellectual disabilities compared with a comparator group of people without intellectual disabilities included problems in advanced care planning (p=0·0003), adherence to the Mental Capacity Act (p=0·0008), living in inappropriate accommodation (p<0·0001), adjusting care as needs changed (p=0·009), and carers not feeling listened to (p=0·006). INTERPRETATION: The Confidential Inquiry provides evidence of the substantial contribution of factors relating to the provision of care and health services to the health disparities between people with and without intellectual disabilities. It is imperative to examine care and service provision for this population as potentially contributory factors to their deaths--factors that can largely be ameliorated. FUNDING: Department of Health for England.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations596
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207