MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296498789 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.supp5.e55a

Diagnosis vs. Function: A Review of Eligibility Criteria for Supports and Services for Children and Youth with Neurodevelopmental Disorders/ Disabilities In Canada

2016· review· en· W4296498789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J MacCuspie

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPopulationCategorizationIntervention (counseling)Government (linguistics)PsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryRehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Neurodevelopmental disorders/disabilities are characterized by impairment in one or more of the classic developmental domains of motor functioning, speech language/communication, learning and cognition, and social-emotional relating. Children with NDD/D require a wide variety of supports and services over their lifetimes and diagnostic classification has traditionally been used to determine eligibility for these resources. However, diagnosis alone tends to under-describe the functional complexity of this population and functional difficulties within a given NDD/D diagnosis can vary and may change over time. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health re-conceptualized the notion of disability focusing on how a given health condition interacts with factors intrinsic and extrinsic to the individual to impact their functioning. In Canada ongoing tension exists between limited services and a growing population of children with NDD/D. These factors have lead to an evolving discourse on the appropriate way to confer eligibility to supports and services in this population. OBJECTIVES: To summarize eligibility criteria for supports and services for Canadian youth with NDD/D in an effort to facilitate discussion and advocacy to help ensure that all children receive the supports and services they require regardless of diagnostic categorization. DESIGN/METHODS: A focused gray literature review was performed to obtain eligibility criteria for government funded supports and services (early intervention, speech therapy, occupational therapy, behavioral intervention, and special education services) for youth aged 0-18 in each Canadian Province. Information was included only if it was published in a government website or document and was available online. Eligibility criteria was coded according to whether it was based on diagnostic categorization, functional impairment, or both and descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Early intervention services and pre-school aged speech/occupational therapy relies on functional impairment in nearly every (90% and 100% respectively) Canadian province/territory for which the information was available. Conversely, access to behavioral intervention relies heavily on diagnostic classification (81%). Some diagnoses (e.g. ASD) confer eligibility to extra therapy or more funding compared to other children with NDD/D. When children enter school access to special education services and speech/occupational therapy is more likely to be tied to diagnosis (45%, 36%, and 43% respectively) than in their pre-school years. CONCLUSION: 1) Eligibility criterion for services and supports for children/youth with NDD/D in Canada vary depending on province/territory. 2) Eligibility criteria are more likely to be based on the presence of functional impairment in preschool than school aged children, with an increasing requirement for children to have a specific diagnostic classification to access services as they age. 3) Certain diagnostic classifications confer increased eligibility for supports and services, in some cases without regard for level of functional impairment. 4) Further research is needed to develop ways of accurately, meaningfully, and efficiently measuring the function of children with NDD/D both at the individual and population level in order to equitably deliver supports and services in a resource limited environment.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0350.054
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→French-language works237,207→