Attitudes on Palliative Care for Adults with Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) are defined as physical/mental impairments before age 18. Not only are many IDD patients living into adulthood, but deinstitutionalization has also led to most living in community settings. Little is known about end-of-life needs in these adults, and existing literature does not examine attitudes of Canadian providers. Objective: Thematic and content analysis examined attitudes of Canadian Pediatric Palliative Care (PPC) practitioners on caring for adults with IDD to identify components of care, which could be improved. Design: An anonymized survey was created (Surveymonkey.com) using open-ended and Likert-scale questions, with thematic/subthematic coding on NVivo11. Initial coding included a codebook, which was refined. Independent coding was compared with initial coding. Coded data were reanalyzed after demographic stratification, results discussed, and consensus reached. Settings/Subjects: All Canadian PPC centers responded through snowball sampling (25 of 36 [70%] practitioners). Measurements/Results: Major themes covered communication and decision making, lack of resources (including access to appropriate services), and knowledge/skill/experience gaps among adult palliative care and generalist practitioners. Gaps included complex medical conditions of IDD patients, trajectories, and related management. Knowledge ratings of adult palliative care and generalist practitioners by respondents were evenly distributed, but only pediatricians gave ratings of poor or worse. PPC practitioners are comfortable being consulted by adult palliative care and generalist colleagues. However, frequency of consults varied dramatically, from one to two times/month in British Columbia to never. Conclusions: PPC practitioners across Canada identified several major issues and barriers to optimal palliative care for adults with IDD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".