What adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities say they need to access annual health examinations: System navigation support and person-centred care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To gain an understanding of the support needs of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) when scheduling, traveling to, and attending annual health examinations (AHEs). DESIGN: Qualitative study that is part of a large population-level intervention aiming to increase uptake of AHEs among adults with IDD. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 8 men and 5 women with IDD took part in semistructured interviews about their personal experiences related to AHEs. METHODS: Thematic analysis was used to examine experiences relating to scheduling, traveling to, and attending AHEs. MAIN FINDINGS: Support emerged as the overarching theme. Support included assistance navigating the health care system (assistance scheduling AHEs, reminders to book AHEs, financial assistance, transportation) and person-centred care (respect of privacy and autonomy, communication style, kindness, compassion, rapport with physician, health advocacy, and collaboration). Barriers to this support were also identified (lack of rapport, perception of unfriendliness, perception that the physician is too busy to tend to needs, and perception that the physician did not want to perform AHEs). CONCLUSION: For adults with IDD, system navigation support and person-centred care were central to accessing AHEs. In collaboration with informal caregivers, physicians have an important role in reducing barriers to patients accessing this valuable preventive care opportunity. Physicians can fulfil some of the needs disclosed by adults with IDD related to attending AHEs by offering support for scheduling appointments, by linking patients with IDD to resources that facilitate appointment attendance, and by increasing consultation duration.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".