Negative and Positive Experiences During the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 Pandemic in Canadians With Developmental Disabilities: A One‐Year Ontario‐Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Understanding the experiences of people with developmental disabilities during the initial period of COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Individuals with developmental disabilities and their caregivers completed baseline and up to five follow-up online surveys using the CRISIS-AFAR measures, between July 2020 and September 2021. We used qualitative (thematic analysis) and quantitative (MANOVA) analytic methods. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen participants (64 caregivers on individuals 6-62 years, 54 self-reporting individuals aged 17-55 years) completed baseline survey; 46 participants (23 caregivers, 23 self-reporting adults) completed ≥1 follow-up. Qualitative themes included uncertainty, and negative and positive influences on behaviours and routines, daily life and mental wellness. Those experiencing positive impacts did not stably perceive so longitudinally. CONCLUSIONS: Despite both negative and positive influences on individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, the prolonged pandemic had wide-ranging repercussions. Emergency preparedness planning should consider the disruptive effects of public health measures on routine and support for this vulnerable 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".