Comprehensive preventive care assessments for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Part 2: 2003 to 2014.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there has been an increase in preventive care among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) as a result of the publication of the Canadian consensus guidelines on the care of adults with IDD in 2006 and 2011. DESIGN: Ecological study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: The study group consisted of community-dwelling adults with IDD between the ages of 40 and 64 living in Ontario identified in 2009-2010 through administrative health and social services data. The comparison group consisted of a propensity-score-matched sample of the remaining Ontario population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A combined measure of a health examination or a Primary Care Quality Composite Score (PCQS) of 0.6 or greater, or both. Both measures were identified using administrative health data. RESULTS: Adults with IDD were 2.04% more likely to have had a health examination or a PCQS of 0.6 or greater before 2011-2012 and 1.70% less likely after 2011-2012. Adults without IDD were 1.03% more likely before 2011-2012 and 13.74% less likely after 2011-2012 to have had a health examination or a PCQS of 0.6 or greater. Male patients with IDD were 15.60% more likely and male patients without IDD were 7.39% less likely to have had a health examination or PCQS of 0.6 or greater compared with female patients. CONCLUSION: Despite the publication of the guidelines there has not been a corresponding increase in the uptake of the annual health examination or in the quality of preventive care among adults with IDD. More is required to reduce this documented inequity in 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".