Care Experiences of Adults With a Dual Diagnosis and Their Family Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals diagnosed with developmental disability and mental illness (a “dual diagnosis”) contend with multiple challenges and system-related barriers. Using an interpretive description approach, separate qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with a dual diagnosis ( n = 7) and their caregiving parents ( n = 8) to examine care-related experiences. Results indicate that individuals with a dual diagnosis and their families experience misunderstanding and stigma. Families provide informal complex care amid insufficient and uncoordinated services but are often excluded from formal care planning. A lack of available funding and services further impedes care. While negative care experiences are reported as prevalent, participants also describe instances of beneficial care. Overall, findings indicate a lack of sufficiently targeted resources, leaving families to absorb system-related care gaps. Recommendations include person- and family-centered care, navigation support, and capacity building. Prevention and emergency and crisis care services, along with housing, vocation, and other supports, are needed. Practice and research development regarding life span needs are recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".