Emergency Department Visits and Use of Outpatient Physician Services by Adults with Developmental Disability and Psychiatric Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the emergency department (ED), primary, and psychiatric care visit rates associated with the presence and absence of a developmental disability (DD) and a mental illness. METHOD: This is a population-based study comparing Ontario adults, with and without DDs and mental illnesses, in terms of rates of primary, psychiatric, and ED care, from April 2007 to March 2009. RESULTS: In Ontario, 45% of adults with a DD received a psychiatric diagnosis during a 2-year period, and 26% of those with a psychiatric diagnosis were classified as having a serious mental illness (SMI), compared with 8% of those with a psychiatric diagnosis but no DD. People with DDs had an increased likelihood of psychiatric and ED visits. Patients with SMIs and DDs had the highest rates of such visits. CONCLUSIONS: People with more severe impairments had the greatest likelihood of ED visits, despite access to outpatient services, suggesting that outpatient care (primary and psychiatric), as currently delivered, may not be adequate to meet their complex needs.
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".