A Scoping Review of Effective Community-Based Primary Healthcare Initiative to Improve Health Outcomes for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) experience poorer health and have more difficulty accessing mainstream healthcare services compared to the general population. To narrow the gap between the health status and healthcare utilization of persons with and without IDD, a number of policies, programs, tools and initiatives have been introduced worldwide, including transitioning persons with IDD residing in institutions to a variety of living arrangements in the community such as group homes. The present scoping review syntheses and critically analyzes empirical evidence on effective healthcare initiatives and programs that best address disparities related to healthcare and social support needs of persons with IDD living in the community. Using an iterative approach, a comprehensive search strategy was constructed to locate literature reviews, as well as quantitative and qualitative empirical studies published between 2008 and 2017. A total of 25 published studies met the inclusion criterion and therefore were included in our analysis. Results are presented emphasising merits and methodological limitations of included studies, as well as discussing current gaps in the literature and providing recommendations for policy and practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".