MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034009847 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00200

Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and interprofessional, team-based primary health care: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3034009847 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrimary careIntellectual disabilityGerontologyMedical educationNursingMedicineFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed 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 are a complex, vulnerable population known to experience health inequities. Interprofessional primary health care teams are recommended to improve access to comprehensive and coordinated health care for these individuals. Limited information is available regarding what services interprofessional primary health care teams provide and how services are evaluated specific to the care of this population. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review considered all studies that referenced individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities who were 18 years or older. It considered all studies that referred to health care provision within a primary health care context. All studies that discussed the provision of interprofessional primary health care services were included. "Interprofessional primary health care team" was the term used to describe services provided by health providers (e.g. physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, dietitians, social workers, mental health workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists) working in a team-based model of care. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs were considered for inclusion. In addition, systematic reviews, program descriptions, clinical reviews, and opinion papers were considered. Studies published in English and French were included. The period considered was from 2000 to the date of the searches (July and August 2018 for bibliographic databases and January 2019 for the final searches of unpublished studies and selected papers from key authors). RESULTS: The search identified 2761 records. Despite the global search strategy, only 20 records were included in the final review, mainly consisting of work based in the United States and Canada. Results were heterogeneous and descriptive in nature, consisting of cross-sectional designs, program descriptions, and clinical reviews. The findings represent only a few distinct interprofessional primary health care team models of care and multiple contributions from a small pool of researchers. Roles for physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, and mental health providers were identified. Ten studies identified either patient-reported outcomes or health-utilization outcomes. Overall, there was no consistent reporting of outcomes across studies, and outcomes specifically related to many interprofessional services were not captured. Although interprofessional, team-based approaches are supported at a policy and practice level, the concept of interprofessional primary health care for this population remains understudied and is challenged by differences in primary health care provision across the world, complexity in how the field is defined, as well as a lack of consistent reporting of the organizational attributes and processes that support interprofessional primary health care provision. CONCLUSIONS: To fully realize the potential of interprofessional primary health care teams, health services research is needed to describe organizational attributes and processes, and evaluate interventions for this population. Engaging in this work will ultimately provide a more fulsome evidence base to support high-quality, interprofessional primary health care provision for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it