MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416485126

Perceptions of primary healthcare services among persons with physical disabilities - part 2: quality issues.

2001· article· en· W2416485126 on OpenAlexaffabout
Monica Branigan, Donna E. Stewart, Gaétan Tardif, Albina Veltman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMedicineHealth carePopulationFamily medicineRehabilitationPromotion (chess)GerontologyPhysical therapyEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The ability of persons with disabilities to access quality primary care in Canada is not well documented. This article reports on the perceived quality of primary care received by persons with disabilities by looking at utilization of elements of the health maintenance examination, referrals, health promotion, healthcare provider role clarification, and satisfaction. METHODS: A sample of convenience was undertaken whereby an anonymous self-report questionnaire, which included the Short Form-36 Health Survey, was mailed to members of several Canadian disability organizations and persons discharged within the last 2 years from a rehabilitation hospital. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 201 individuals (20% response rate) completed and returned the surveys, 61.2% of whom were women. Some elements of the health maintenance examination, including Pap tests, mammogram referral, and measurement of blood pressure (BP), were not markedly different from population census data. Inquiry around health promotion was low, as 61.7% of our sample did not receive a functional assessment, 58.2% were not asked about emotions, and only 10% were asked about physical or sexual violence. Diet, exercise, smoking, pain, sleep, alcohol, sex, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and reproductive choices were discussed in varying degrees. INTERPRETATION: Among respondents in our survey, disabled women were able to access important screening tests. Health promotion services, however, were often not offered. The particular healthcare needs of disabled women and men -- eg, having a condition that may be progressive, being at increased risk of secondary disability and the added effects of aging -- may be addressed more effectively by including health promotion. It is proposed that functional assessment, emotional inquiry, and role clarification could improve the delivery of health promotion and the perceived quality of care received.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations24
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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