Interprofessional team-based primary health care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to examine the state of the evidence for interprofessional team-based primary health care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. INTRODUCTION: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities have complex health needs, as well as experience health service inequities. Interprofessional primary healthcare teams offer access to comprehensive primary health care and are recommended as an approach to improve the health of this population. At present, limited information is available regarding what services interprofessional primary healthcare teams provide and how services are evaluated specific to the care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider all studies that reference individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are 18 years and over. It will consider all studies that refer to interprofessional healthcare provision within a primary healthcare team context. Interprofessional care is the term that will be used to describe services provided by interprofessional health providers (e.g. nurses, dietitians, social workers) in these teams. Work completed by physicians and nurses within traditional general practices will be excluded. METHODS: This review will be conducted according to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. It will consider quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods study designs for inclusion. In addition, systematic reviews, program descriptions, clinical reviews and opinion papers will be considered. The review will consider all studies published since 2000 in English or French. All duplicates will be removed from identified citations. A data extraction tool will assist reviewers to identify and synthesize findings from selected papers.
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 | 0.089 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.012 |
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".