Stakeholders’ Perspectives towards the Use of the Comprehensive Health Assessment Program (<scp>CHAP</scp>) for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities in Manitoba
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No standardized tool is used in Canada for comprehensive health assessments of adults with intellectual disabilities. This study was conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing the Comprehensive Health Assessment Program (CHAP) in Manitoba, Canada. METHOD: This was a qualitative study using a purposive sample of physicians, nurse practitioners, support workers and families. Data were collected through individual interviews and focus groups and were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Use of the CHAP was perceived as beneficial for persons with intellectual disabilities. Improved continuity of care was of the reported benefits. Six barriers for the future implementation of the CHAP were identified including the time required to complete the CHAP, and the perceived lack of physicians' willingness to do comprehensive assessments. CONCLUSION: The future implementation of the CHAP was strongly supported. For its successful implementation, training of healthcare professionals and support staff and change in regulations and policies were recommended.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it