Healthcare services utilization among people with intellectual disability and comparison with the general population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have reported unmet health needs in individuals with intellectual disability (ID). This study illustrated and analysed patterns of healthcare services utilization among people with intellectual disability and compared their use to that of the general population. METHOD: Participants (N = 791, aged 15-82) were mainly recruited through government-financed agencies specializing in services for people with intellectual disabilities in Québec, Canada. Comparisons were possible by using health administrative data. RESULTS: Some services were more used by people with intellectual disability than the general population (general medicine, psychiatry, PSA blood tests), and others were accessed at significantly lower frequencies (optometry, physiotherapy, Pap tests). Similar rates were found for mammography, dentistry and psychology. Inequities were more salient for individuals who had more severe levels of intellectual disability. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support that the population with intellectual disability would benefit from policies and practices aimed at enhancing the access to healthcare services.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it