Health profiles and associated service use among adults with HIV and intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Owing to the commonly held notion that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have low risk of HIV acquisition, we compared the prevalence of HIV infection among people with and without IDD. We also examined health status and health service use among the HIV-infected group. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study using linked administrative health and social services databases. METHODS: We compared HIV prevalence between Ontario adults with IDD (n = 64 008) and a 20% random sample of Ontario adults without IDD. Among the HIV-infected group, we compared adults with and without IDD in terms of comorbid chronic physical conditions and mental health disorders, as well as use of overall health services, mental health services, and HIV-specific services. RESULTS: HIV prevalence per 100 000 population did not differ for adults with IDD [163.38 (95% confidence interval: 132.27, 199.6)] and without IDD [172.45 (95 confidence interval: 167.48, 177.53)]. Among the HIV-infected group, those with IDD had more comorbid chronic physical conditions and mental health disorders. They also had greater use of overall health services and mental health services. Likelihood of use of HIV-specific services also differed for those with and without IDD. DISCUSSION: A similar prevalence of HIV among adults with and without IDD accentuates a need for strategies for individuals with IDD to be included in HIV prevention efforts. High prevalence of chronic physical and mental health comorbidity and health service use among the HIV-infected group with IDD highlight a need for comprehensive and coordinated treatment plans to optimize outcomes for this complex patient group.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".