‘More together than apart’: The evaluation of a virtual course to improve mental health and well‐being of adults with intellectual disabilities during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic
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: To address the growing concerns over poor mental health experienced by adults with intellectual disabilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a national virtual mental health course was delivered and evaluated. METHODS: This mixed methods study utilized both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Participants were 27 adults with intellectual disabilities who participated in the 6-week course. Participants completed measures of self-efficacy and well-being at three time points and qualitative satisfaction measures at post and follow-up. RESULTS: Attendance was high and the course was feasible and acceptable to participants. Positive changes related to mental health self-efficacy were detected (p = .01), though mental well-being did not improve. CONCLUSION: The study provided evidence for the feasibility and value of the course for this population. Future research should examine how virtual courses could support the population in terms of pandemic recovery and how courses may work for individuals who are less independent.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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