Roadmap for Creating Effective Communication Tools to Improve Health Equity for Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) live 20 fewer years than the average person and almost 40% of their deaths are from preventable causes. They suffer from well-documented disparities in health and healthcare, and much of this inequity is rooted in information transfer failures between patients, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers. Tools to improve communication between these stakeholders, such as health checks and hand-held health records, or health passports, have been implemented in Europe, Australia and Canada with mixed results, and there are no standard information tools currently in widespread use in the U.S. We review the evidence of the effectiveness of these tools, as well as their barriers to adoption, to inform proposed development of next-generation information transfer tools most useful to patients with IDD and their healthcare providers. The repair of health information transfer failures will be a major step toward achieving health equity for this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".