Action priorities to facilitate planning of the transition to adulthood of young people with profound intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: It is essential for parents and professionals to be engaged in identifying and developing solutions that facilitate the transition to adulthood of young people with profound intellectual disability. However, most of them are dissatisfied in various ways with the current services available. To date, there is a paucity of literature guiding the development of solutions to meet the needs of young people with profound intellectual disability, their parents and their professionals. This study aimed to understand actions priorities to facilitate transition planning for young people with profound intellectual disability according to parents and professionals. Methods: Parents and professionals from the education, health and community sectors participated in a three-stage prioritization process. Results: The multistage methodological process for obtaining the viewpoints of parents and professionals involved in the planning of the transition to adulthood appear to be a relevant and realistic method. Both parents and professionals prioritized solutions in the informational and material support categories. They identified the creation of a transition guide and support for the development of meaningful activities for individuals with profound intellectual disability as the most feasible and important solutions. Both also highlighted the need to increase the number of places in day activity centres and to have a one-stop-shop for both information and guidance from a single actor during transition process. Conclusions: Parents and professionals had similar action priorities, which pointed to the most interesting ways forward to develop in future studies of the transition to adulthood of young people with profound intellectual disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".