Looking across health and healthcare outcomes for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and psychiatric disorders: population-based longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) and psychiatric disorders frequently co-occur. Although each has been associated with negative outcomes, their combined effect has rarely been studied. AIMS: To examine the likelihood of five negative health and healthcare outcomes for adults with IDD and mental health/addiction disorders (MHAs), both separately and together. For each outcome, demographic, clinical and system-level factors were also examined. METHOD: Linked administrative data-sets were used to identify adults in Ontario, Canada, with IDD and MHA (n = 29 476), IDD-only (n = 35 223) and MHA-only (n = 727 591). Five outcomes (30-day readmission, 30-day repeat ED visit, delayed discharge, long-term care admission and premature mortality) were examined by logistic regression models with generalised estimating equation or survival analyses. For each outcome, crude (disorder groups only) and complete (adding biosocial covariates) models were run using a general population reference group. RESULTS: The IDD and MHA group had the highest proportions across outcomes for both crude and complete models. They had the highest adjusted ratios for readmissions (aOR 1.93, 95%CI 1.88-1.99), repeat ED visit (aOR 2.00, 95%CI 1.98-2.02) and long-term care admission (aHR 12.19, 95%CI 10.84-13.71). For delayed discharge, the IDD and MHA and IDD-only groups had similar results (aOR 2.00 (95%CI 1.90-2.11) and 2.21 (95%CI 2.07-2.36). For premature mortality, the adjusted ratios were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer outcomes for adults with IDD, particularly those with MHA, suggest a need for a comprehensive, system-wide approach spanning health, disability and social support.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".