MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293243853 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.2065

COVID-19 vaccination 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 .

2022· article· en· W4293243853 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie Troke, Diana An, Eliane Kim, Yona Lunsky, Robert Balogh, Lesley Plumptre

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationMedicinePopulationPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Christian ministryCohortYoung adultDemographyEnvironmental healthGerontologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesEquitable vaccine distribution was essential in supporting Ontario’s COVID-19 response, particularly for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. An Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) request through ICES, sought to report on COVID-19 vaccination uptake in adults with and without IDD. ApproachTo examine the proportion of adults with IDD vaccinated for COVID-19, a request from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (MCCSS) was approved by the ICES-AHRQ team. A secondary goal was to explore if vaccinated individuals with IDD experienced similar levels of protection from COVID-19 infection, to the general population. The open cohort was derived by linking vaccination events reported in Ontario COVID-19 Vaccine Data, between December 2020 to December 2021, to several 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. ResultsThe proportion who received at least two doses was similar between both groups (82% (IDD); 83% (non-IDD)). However, despite emerging evidence suggesting that high-risk populations should receive a third dose, a lower proportion of people with IDD (25%), compared to the general population without IDD (30%), had done so. The IDD subpopulation is generally younger, and partially explained the third dose findings when examined by age. Withal, adults with IDD vaccinated with at least two doses were mostly male (62% vs 48%), 18-29 years of age (44% vs 17%), and from the lowest neighborhood income quintile (26% vs 18%), compared to the non-IDD population, respectively. Cumulatively, adults with IDD had comparable rates of confirmed breakthrough case infections following vaccination (17%), to those without IDD (19%). Conclusion/ImplicationsAdministrative health data and analytics through the ICES-AHRQ program were used in responding to COVID-19, and providing public health guidance, for those with IDD. To inform decision making and policy actions related to immediate vaccination strategies, MCCSS used such findings to target vaccination efforts in specific IDD subpopulations, across Ontario.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207