Attitudes and Knowledge Surrounding Point-of-Care COVID-19 Testing in Ontario Group Homes for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to determine the attitudes and knowledge of managers and care teams within group home facilities for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) concerning the use of rapid point-of-care antigen testing for COVID-19 to protect residents and limit transmission. Specifically, our research asked what is the level of understanding concerning the suitability of such testing, and what barriers might exist to implementing this new technology. A small survey instrument was developed to assess knowledge and understanding specific to this sector of care facilities. This survey was distributed to approximately 250 managers and care staff of 15 group homes in Ontario for people with IDD. Of the 11 respondents, all indicated trust in this technology to identify positive COVID infection, even in asymptomatic individuals, with some respondents over-estimating the benefits of implementing this technology as a screening tool. Therefore, increasing knowledge of the limitations of rapid testing as a screening tool for visitors, residents and staff, as well as addressing barriers to adoption of point-of-care analyzers, must accompany implementation of screening at any facility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".