Using Healthcare Services: Perspectives of Community‐Dwelling Aging Adults With Intellectual Disabilities and Family Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aging of adults with Intellectual Disability (ID) in the community resulting from deinstitutionalization signals a need for change in healthcare policy and services. This population is growing older at rates similar to the rest of the population, and individuals with ID often have multiple chronic illnesses and may experience young‐onset dementia, increasing their need to use healthcare services. However, it is widely recognized that currently healthcare services are ill‐prepared to meet the unique needs of this population as they age in their communities. The purpose of this study was to explore this issue from the perspectives of aging individuals with ID and family members (FMs). This study employed qualitative description as the method of inquiry and took place in British Columbia, Canada. Adults with ID age 40 years and older (N = 21) and FMs (N = 26) participated. Data were collected through focus groups and semistructured interviews. Thematic data analysis was conducted to generate the main study findings. Two overarching themes were identified. First, “the organization and culture of healthcare services in the community.” This theme included issues such as age restrictions on health services, navigating health services, the culture of appointment‐making, and implications of living in rural settings, all of which influenced how individuals used healthcare services. Second, “interactions with healthcare providers” illustrated ways in which providers contribute to healthcare experiences. Many factors, both organizational and interpersonal, shape the experiences of aging individuals with ID using healthcare services in their communities. There continues to be a policy and service gap that can create unnecessary and avoidable difficulties in using healthcare services. Policies, service delivery, and education of healthcare providers need to be revisited in light of the unique needs of this population aging in the community in order to ensure healthcare is accessible.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".