Health and Community-Based Services for Individuals with Neurological Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current study involves a national survey of healthcare providers who offer services for individuals with a variety of neurological conditions. It aims to describe the provision of health and community-based services as well as the admission criteria, waitlist practices, and referral sources of these services. METHODS: An online survey was directed at administrators/managers from publicly funded hospital programs, long-term care homes, and community-based healthcare provider agencies that were believed to be providing information and/or services to patients with a variety of neurological conditions. RESULTS: Approximately 60% (n=254) of respondents reported providing services in either urban/suburban areas or rural/remote areas only, whereas the remaining 40% (n=172) provided services regardless of patient location. A small proportion of respondents reported providing services for individuals with dystonia (28%), Tourette syndrome (17%), and Rett syndrome (13%). There was also a paucity of diverse healthcare professionals across all institutions, but particularly mental healthcare professionals in hospitals. Lastly, the majority of respondents reported numerous exclusion criteria with regard to service provision, including prevalent comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: If the few services provided for these neurological patient populations exclude common comorbidities, it is likely that there will be no other place for these individuals to seek care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".