Left behind in the “Return to Normal”: People with intellectual and developmental disabilities' outcomes and supports 4 years into COVID‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) immensely. While the pandemic and life during it has changed over time, by the end of 2023, the most prominent narrative was a “return to normal.” Yet, there is less research about people with IDD's quality of life and services and supports beyond the initial waves of the pandemic. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on people with IDD's quality of life outcomes and supports 4 years into the pandemic. Using a repeated cross‐sectional design and linear and binary logistic regression models, we analyzed secondary Personal Outcome Measures® data from 4549 people with IDD from 2018 to 2023 in the United States ( n = 4391; 32 states), Canada ( n = 142), Ireland ( n = 12), New Zealand ( n = 3), and Australia ( n = 1). We found people with IDD's quality of life outcomes and supports have yet to return to prepandemic levels. In fact, not only was almost every area of quality of life negatively impacted, many people with IDD who were interviewed in 2022 and 2023 had worse outcomes and supports than those interviewed earlier in the pandemic. Instead of clinging to the idea that life or the service system for people with IDD has “returned to normal,” we must recognize that normal was never a good enough destination to return to for people with IDD in the first place. Instead, we must commit to a new normal that is inclusive, accessible, and equitable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".