What is and isn’t working: Factors involved in sustaining community‐based health and participation initiatives for people ageing with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) age, it is important that I/DD agencies are prepared to support healthy ageing in homes and in communities. This study explored supports and barriers to sustaining community-based health and participation initiatives (CBHPI) for people ageing with I/DD living in group homes managed by agencies. The study utilized interviews and photovoice with 70 participants-35 individuals with I/DD and 35 management/direct support agency staff. Data were analysed through content analysis and triangulation of data where five themes emerged: Agency values and policies related to healthy ageing; resources and staff competencies; communication between management and staff; community/university partnerships; and peer relations. Findings show that I/DD agencies and people with I/DD value CBHPI, but they find them difficult to sustain due to limited resources and lack of training specific to ageing with I/DD. Conducting system-level research within I/DD agencies to include first-person accounts of people with I/DD, staff and management provides insight on how to effectively support the needs of people with I/DD to improve their health and community participation as they age.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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".