Towards developing an intervention to support periodic health checks for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Striving for health equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Canadian Consensus Guidelines for Primary Care of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities recommends conducting periodic health checks in primary care, uptake is lacking. This study seeks to understand factors influencing the conduct of periodic health checks and identify what needs to change to increase them. METHOD: Qualitative data from five stakeholder groups (adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, primary care providers, administrative staff, family, disability support workers) was guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and 'what needs to change' to support periodic health checks. RESULTS: Stakeholders (n = 41) voiced multiple barriers. A total of 31 common and 2 unique themes were identified plus 33 items 'needing to change'. CONCLUSION: Despite barriers, stakeholders saw merit in periodic health checks as a preventative and equitable healthcare offering for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Results will inform future intervention development steps.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".