MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291019295 · doi:10.2196/38916

Accessibility of Virtual Primary Care for Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study

2022· article· en· W4291019295 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Avra Selick, Janet Durbin, Yani Hamdani, Jennifer Rayner, Yona Lunsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsAccess Alliance Multicultural Health and Community ServicesUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsThematic analysisPopulationHealth careQualitative researchPsychologyPandemicNursingAnxietyMedicineFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increase in the delivery of virtual primary care. Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) have complex health care needs, and little is known about the value and appropriateness of virtual care for this patient population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the accessibility of virtual primary care for patients with IDDs during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 38 participants in Ontario, Canada between March and November 2021. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to achieve a diverse sample including 11 adults with IDDs, 13 family caregivers, 5 IDD support staff members, and 9 primary care physicians. An iterative mixed inductive and deductive thematic analysis approach was used to code the data and synthesize higher-level themes. The analysis was informed by the Levesque Patient-Centered Access to Health Care Framework. RESULTS: We identified themes related to 4 of 5 access-to-care dimensions that highlighted both the benefits and challenges of virtual care for adults with IDDs. The benefits included saving time spent traveling and waiting; avoiding anxiety and challenging behavior for patients who struggle to attend in-person visits; allowing caregivers who live far away from their loved ones to participate; reducing illness transmission; and allowing health care providers to see patients in their home environments. The challenges included lack of access to necessary technology, lack of comfort or skill using technology, and lack of nonverbal communication; difficulty engaging and establishing rapport; patient exclusion from the health care encounter; and concerns about privacy and confidentiality. An overarching theme was that "one size does not fit all," and the accessibility of virtual care was dependent on the interaction between the following 5 categories of factors: patient characteristics, patient context, caregiver characteristics, service context, and reason for a particular primary care visit. Though virtual care was not always appropriate, in some cases, it dramatically improved patients' abilities to access necessary health care. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a flexible patient-centered system including multiple delivery modalities is needed to ensure all patients have access to primary care. Implementing this system will require improved virtual care platforms, access to technology for patients and caregivers, training for primary care providers, and appropriately aligned primary care funding models.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207