Age-friendly communities for older persons with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The life expectancy for persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) has increased significantly, resulting in an increasing number of aging persons with ID. To promote healthy and active aging of persons with ID, discussions on new initiatives to design age-friendly communities have begun at local and international levels. The purpose of this paper, a qualitative research study, is to identify features of an age-friendly community, and facilitators and barriers from the perspectives of older adults with mild ID and their caregivers who live in the city of Winnipeg in Canada. Design/methodology/approach Seven older persons with mild ID were interviewed, and 15 caregivers participated in focus group discussions. All participants were asked questions about features of community living and their experiences in eight broad topic areas (i.e. transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, opportunities for community involvement, communication and information, community support and healthcare services, and outdoor spaces and buildings). Findings The results indicated that many of the current features of the city of Winnipeg do not adequately address the needs of aging persons with ID; specifically, participants revealed that issues related to accessibility, social participation, social disrespect and inclusion, and lack of resources were important barriers to independence. Originality/value The findings will increase awareness of the needs of aging persons with ID and inform programme planning, service delivery, coordination of community-based services and policies to support healthy and active aging for this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".