MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406136029 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v7i1.42454

The Value of Caregiver Time: Costs of Support and Care for Individuals Living with Autism Spectrum Disorder

2017· article· en· W4406136029 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn Dudley, J.C. Herbert Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderValue (mathematics)AutismPsychologyAssisted livingPsychiatryMedicineGerontologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a child is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, the significance of the impact that diagnosis can have on his or her family’s life is incalculable, except in one respect: cost. If that child is severely impacted and requires constant and lifelong supports, then the value of caregiver time required to support that individual is approximately $5.5 million higher than that for someone without autism. An autism diagnosis of a high-needs child at age two represents the equivalent of telling the family that they must make an immediate lump-sum investment on that day of $1.6 million, invested at a five-per-cent return, to pay for the lifetime costs of care and support their loved one will require. And that amount does not even account for added professional services, such as speech therapists, psychologists, and occupational therapists, or additional out-of-pocket expenses that may be required, such as special equipment or diets. Autism is the most common neurological condition diagnosed in children and it is now estimated that one in 88 children will be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. Yet, across Canada, there are significant gaps in the publicly provided support system, leaving the cost burden to be picked up by families. In the case of those individuals requiring constant support, 24 hours a day, every day, the cost of hiring caregivers alone would require an annual income of $200,000 — before a family even begins to pay for shelter, clothing, groceries and other basic necessities. Already families with severe high-needs children are more likely to experience lower income than they might otherwise, due to the extra care commitment their loved one requires. Only a very few families will have the means to afford to pay for total care. So, in most cases, the responsibility for care falls largely, if not entirely, on the family, or in a worst-case scenario, the autistic individual is left with inadequate care. Autism is an expensive condition and governments may underestimate the full cost of community-based supports needed for the vast range of unique needs of those living with autism. A scan of provincial programs finds a patchwork of unequal and incomplete supports for individuals living with autism spectrum disorders. Gaps are particularly evident once individuals leave the public school system, where they are at least provided with some form of day support. Sufficient adult day supports, evening and night supports, quality group homes, the availability of properly trained caregivers and respite services, recreational activities, post-secondary opportunities and employment supports all suffer varying levels of inadequacy across the country. As autism becomes increasingly prevalent, continuing to rely largely on family supports where community services are fragmented or unavailable is not a sustainable approach. Canadian policy-makers will need to consider the costs of a growing and aging population of individuals living with autism who need a range of supports so that adequate quality of care and a decent quality of life are enjoyed by many who remain some of this country’s most vulnerable citizens.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy Publications→Same topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→