Maternal Disability and Early Child Preventive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Preventive health care for children comprises routine well-child visits and immunizations. Women with physical, sensory, or intellectual or developmental disabilities tend to experience more barriers to preventive health care; yet it is unknown whether such barriers are observed among their young children. METHODS: This population-based study in Ontario, Canada included children born between 2012 and 2019 whose mothers had a physical (n = 74 084), sensory (n = 26 532), or intellectual or developmental (n = 1391) disability, multiple disabilities (n = 5774), or no disability (n = 723 442). Primary outcomes were receipt of the recommended number of well-child visits and routine immunizations in the first 2 years. Secondary outcomes included receipt of the enhanced 18-month developmental assessment and any developmental screen. Relative risks (aRR) were generated using modified Poisson regression and adjusted for maternal sociodemographics and mental health and child sex. RESULTS: Compared with children of mothers without disabilities, those whose mothers had intellectual or developmental disabilities were less likely to receive the recommended number of well-child visits (56.3% vs 63.2%; aRR 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.97), routine immunizations (43.8% vs 53.7%; aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94), enhanced 18-month developmental assessment (52.3% vs 60.8%; aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97), or any developmental screen (54.9% vs 62.5%; aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.99). Other disability groups did not experience such disparities. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to develop resources to improve access to preventive health care for young children of women with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".