Using Population Health Surveys to Measure the Use of Services and the Prevalence of Psychiatric and/or Behavioural Conditions in Individuals with an Intellectual Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Compared to the general population, individuals with intellectual disabilities have a higher prevalence of health problems, including psychiatric and/or behavioural conditions (dual diagnosis).Research suggests that the proportion of persons with intellectual disabilities who have a dual diagnosis ranges from 14% to 64% depending on the population studied and the diagnostic criteria used.However, there is little population-based information in Canada about people with such a dual diagnosis. Objectives:The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric or behavioural conditions among adults with an intellectual disability in Canada, and to estimate the use of mental health services among these individuals. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of two cross-sectional, population-based surveys (2005 Canadian Community Health Survey: CCHS and 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey: PALS), and the 2008/09 Survey of Adults with Intellectual Disabilities in South Eastern Ontario: SAID-SEO.Relevant variables were identified inthe surveys to answer the study objectives.Confidence intervals were provided for all estimates and the results were compared within subgroups for each survey, as well as between surveys. Results:The proportion of Canadian adults with an intellectual disability is 0.2% according to the CCHS and 0.5% according to the PALS.The proportion of individuals with a dual diagnosis was found to be 31% in the CCHS, 44% in the PALS, and 33% in the SAID-SEO.These prevalence estimates fall within the ranges reported in the
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".