Agency, social and healthcare supports for adults with intellectual disability at the end of life in out‐of‐home, non‐institutional community residences in Western nations: A literature review
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: The nature and quality of end-of-life care received by adults with intellectual disabilities in out-of-home, non-institutional community agency residences in Western nations is not well understood. METHOD: A range of databases and search engines were used to locate conceptual, clinical and research articles from relevant peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: The present authors present a literature review of the agency, social and healthcare supports that impact end-of-life care for adults with intellectual disabilities. More information is needed about where people with intellectual disabilities are living at the very end of life and where they die. CONCLUSIONS: The support needs for adults with intellectual disabilities will change over time, particularly at the end of life. There are some areas, such as removing barriers to providing services, staff training, partnerships between agencies and palliative care providers, and advocacy, where further research may help to improve the end-of-life care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 it