Nursing care for persons with developmental disabilities: Review of literature on barriers and facilitators faced by nurses to provide care
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
AIMS: To identify barriers and facilitators to nursing care of individuals with developmental disabilities (DDs). BACKGROUND: Individuals with DDs experience health disparities. Nurses, although well positioned to provide optimal care to this population, face challenges. DESIGN: Narrative review of extant published peer-reviewed literature. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, ProQuest and EBSCO, were searched for studies published in English between 2000 and 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Three reviewers reviewed abstracts and completed data extraction. Knowledge synthesis was completed by evaluating the 17 selected studies. RESULTS: Emerging themes were: (1) barriers and challenges to nursing interventions; (2) facilitators to nursing care; and (3) recommendations for nursing education, policy and practice. CONCLUSION: Nursing has the potential to be a key partner in supporting the health of people with DDs. IMPACT: There is a need for specific education and training, so nurses are better equipped to provide care for people with DDs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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