Care of adults with developmental disabilities: Effects of a continuing education course for primary care providers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an interdisciplinary, guideline-based continuing education course on measures related to the care of adults with developmental disabilities (DD). DESIGN: Before-and-after study with a control group. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven primary care providers (physicians, registered nurses, and nurse practitioners). INTERVENTION: Participants either only received reference material about primary care of people with DD (control group) or participated in a continuing education course on primary care of people with DD in addition to receiving the reference material (intervention group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants reported on 5 key measures related to care of adults with DD: frequency of using guidelines, frequency of performing periodic health examinations, frequency of assessing patients who present with behaviour changes, level of comfort while caring for adults with DD, and knowledge of primary care related to adults with DD. RESULTS: Over time, the intervention group showed significant increases in 4 of the 5 key measures of care compared with the control group: the frequency of guideline use (P < .001), frequency of assessment of patients' behaviour change (P = .03), comfort level in caring for people with DD (P = .01), and knowledge of primary care related to adults with DD (P = .01). CONCLUSION: A continuing education course on primary care of adults with DD is a useful interdisciplinary model to train health professionals who provide primary care services to these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".