MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084779451 · doi:10.2217/cer-2020-0155

Patient and caregiver experiences at a specialized primary care center for autistic adults

2020· article· en· W3084779451 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany N. Hand, Daniel L. Coury, Amy Darragh, Susan White, Susan D. Moffatt‐Bruce, Lauren Harris, Anne Longo, Daniel Gilmore, Jennifer H. Garvin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHealth careMedical homeAutismSpecial needsPatient satisfactionPopulationFamily medicineHealthcare deliveryPrimary carePsychiatryNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Little is known about the extent to which patient-centered medical homes meet the needs of autistic adults. Materials & methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of autistic adult patients (n = 47) and caregivers of autistic adult patients (n = 66) receiving care through one patient-centered medical home specifically designed to meet the needs of this population. We performed post hoc comparisons of our results to previously published data from a national sample of autistic adults. Results: Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with care, frequent preventive healthcare use and few unmet healthcare needs. Autistic adults in our sample reported significantly higher satisfaction and fewer unmet healthcare needs. Conclusion: A patient-centered medical home tailored to the needs of autistic adults is a promising approach to healthcare delivery for meeting this population’s needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207