Care in the Community: Home Care Use Among Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Community‐based healthcare services have quickly evolved over the last few decades to respond to the growing population of older adults, and their desire to remain independent in the community. In Ontario, Canada, deinstitutionalization has resulted in all persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities living—and aging, in the community. This paper compares use of home care services in Ontario among adults (age 18–99 years) with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities over time. Home care use over a 5‐year period was compared between a cohort of 46,008 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and a random sample of 3,272,080 adults without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Persons with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities received similar types of home care services. Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities had much higher rates of admission to home care, and at much earlier ages. While this remained true over time, slight differences by age were noted between groups. Higher use at earlier ages suggests that home care services are responding to the needs of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Future research should identify (or develop) best practices for promoting independence in the community for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities with healthcare needs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".