Direct care staff knowledge about medication for individuals with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The majority of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) are prescribed at least one, if not multiple medications, with psychotropic medications being the most commonly prescribed. Direct care staff play an important role in psychotropic medication administration and monitoring, yet little is known about their knowledge and comfort with medication. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach A 15-item survey, focusing on self-reported knowledge and comfort with psychotropic medication, was completed by 152 direct care staff employed at three agencies providing residential services for individuals with ID across Ontario. Findings In total, 62 per cent of staff respondents reported that psychotropic medications were among the top medications regularly taken by the individuals they support, with behaviour listed as the most commonly reported reason for taking this medication. The majority of staff reported monitoring medication, however, the frequency of monitoring varied considerably. Generally, staff reported feeling comfortable and knowledgeable about medication use, but, most reported a desire for additional medication training. Originality/value This is the first Canadian study to examine staff knowledge and comfort regarding medication use, and the first study to assess PRN (“as needed”) as well as regularly administered medications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".