MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403680580 · doi:10.3390/ijerph21111402

Cancer Prevention in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review of Caregiver Perspectives in Institutional and Home Care Settings

2024· review· en· W4403680580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S.M. Klara, Mohammed Elmadani, Horváth Éva, Tóth Lívia, Godfrey Mbaabu Limungi, Osama Hamad, Diêgo Micael Barreto Andrade, Orsolya Máté

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerGerontologyMEDLINEMedicineSystematic reviewPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) face unique challenges in accessing cancer prevention measures. Caregivers play a crucial role in facilitating these measures, yet their perspectives are under-researched. Methods: This systematic literature review explores caregiver perspectives on cancer prevention for adults with IDs in institutional and home care settings, aiming to understand their roles, knowledge, and challenges. Thirteen articles from the UK, the USA, Canada, and Ireland were analyzed through thematic synthesis. Four overarching themes were identified: breast cancer screening perspectives, caregivers’ knowledge and barriers to cancer prevention, caregivers’ perspectives, and cultural context and decision-making. Results: Caregivers, including healthcare professionals and family members, are essential in facilitating breast cancer screening for individuals with IDs. Challenges include explaining screening procedures, limited awareness, and logistical barriers, highlighting the need for targeted educational interventions. Disparities in access underscore the necessity for comprehensive training programs. Healthcare professionals’ perspectives reveal existing disparities and suggest interventions for improved accessibility and understanding. Cultural context influences decision-making, emphasizing the importance of culturally sensitive care. The role of family caregivers in decision-making necessitates empowering and supporting them through tailored interventions. Conclusions: This review provides insights into the challenges and opportunities in cancer prevention for individuals with IDs, suggesting the need for educational interventions, training programs, and systemic changes to address disparities. It lays the groundwork for future research and the development of holistic and inclusive strategies in this critical healthcare domain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207