COVID-19 testing, infection rates, and related outcomes in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD): An application of linked administrative health data to support Ontario’s COVID-19 response.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesPeople with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, a population more likely to experience poor health outcomes. An Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) request through ICES led to an investigation that monitored COVID-19 related infections and outcomes in adults with and without IDD.
 ApproachThe ICES-AHRQ team approved a request from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (MCCSS), to determine the proportion of adults with IDD tested and confirmed positive for COVID-19. The scientists also explored if positive IDD cases experienced similar health outcomes to the general population. The open cohort was derived by linking those with a COVID-19 test in Ontario Laboratories Information System, from January 2020 to December 2021, to supplemented positive case data and administrative health databases. An algorithm was used to define IDD by a series of inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department and/or physician visits, with IDD diagnostic codes.
 ResultsSimilar rates of testing and positivity were observed for those with (46%; 6%) and without IDD (43%; 5%). However, adults with IDD confirmed positive for COVID-19 were mostly male (62% vs 49%), aged 18-29 (40% vs 27%), had medical conditions associated with frailty (15% vs 4%), and from the lowest neighborhood income quintile (27% vs 23%), compared to the non-IDD population, respectively. Cumulatively, deaths and hospitalizations following a COVID-19 diagnosis were two-times more likely in the IDD population, while comparable rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were reported. Particularly, adults with IDD aged 18-54 experienced higher rates of hospitalizations (48% vs 30%), ICU admissions (56% vs 36%), and deaths (26% vs 6%), compared to the same age group in those without IDD.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsReal-time administrative health data and analytics were used to support Ontario’s COVID-19 response in those with IDD. To inform decision making and policy actions related to immediate testing strategies, MCCSS used such findings to increase the availability of testing for adults with IDD, who may face multiple barriers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".