The healthcare needs and general practice utilization of people with acquired neurological disability and complex needs: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: For people with acquired neurological disabilities and complex needs, general practitioners (GPs) play an important role in health management and early intervention for the prevention of comorbidities and health complications. People with disability are a vulnerable group who need and have the right to, quality general practice services. It is therefore important to understand the health needs and service use of this group. The aim of this review was to identify the healthcare needs and general practice utilization of people with acquired neurological disabilities and complex needs. Methods: A scoping review methodological framework was utilized. Six databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library) were searched. Articles were included if they reported on general practice service utilization of people with acquired neurological disabilities and complex needs aged between 18 and 65. Articles were required to be peer-reviewed, written in English and published between 2010 and 2021. Results: Thirty-one articles were included in the review. Studies originated from Canada (9), the United States (8), Australia (4), Switzerland (4), the United Kingdom (2), England (1), Norway (1), France (1) and Denmark (1). For many people, GPs were the main healthcare provider. People with disability consult multiple healthcare providers and navigate complex healthcare systems. Commonly presented healthcare needs were bladder, bowel and skin problems, pain and chronic pain, medication needs and mental health concerns. Conclusions: People with acquired neurological disabilities and complex needs were vulnerable to receiving suboptimal healthcare. The literature highlighted issues regarding the accessibility of services, the fragmentation of health services and inadequate preventative care. GPs were challenged to offer adequate disability-related expertise and to meet the mental health needs of people with disability within time constraints. Patient and Public Involvement: This manuscript was prepared in collaboration with a GP, who is one of the authors. A person with lived experience of acquired neurological disability was engaged to check the alignment of the findings with their personal experience and provide feedback.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".