How HIV affects health and service use for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Although rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are similar for individuals with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), very little is known about the health needs and service use of those with IDD and HIV. Among a population with IDD, we compared the physical and mental health profiles, as well as general and mental health service use for those with and without HIV. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative health and social service databases. METHODS: The prevalence of physical conditions and mental health disorders, and patterns of service use for any reason and service use for mental health issues were compared among Ontario adults with IDD and HIV (n = 107) and without HIV (n = 63 901) in log-binomial models adjusted for age, sex and neighbourhood income and rurality. RESULTS: Adults with IDD and HIV were more likely than those without HIV to have three types of mental health disorders: non-psychotic disorders [aRR: adjusted rate ratio (aRR): 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.47)], psychotic disorders [aRR: 1.57 (1.09, 2.28)] and substance use disorders [aRR: 3.52 (2.53, 4.91)]. Adults with IDD and HIV were also more likely to have emergency department visits [aRR: 1.68 (1.42, 1.98)] and hospital admissions [aRR: 2.55 (1.74, 3.73)] for any reason, and to have mental health emergency department visits and/or admissions [aRR: 2.82 (1.90, 4.18)]. DISCUSSION: Adults with IDD and HIV have complex health profiles and greater health service use than HIV-negative adults with IDD. These findings call for closer integration of programs delivered by the HIV and disability sectors to optimise the health of this patient 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 | 0.004 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".