A Survey Study Exploring the Perceived Communication Barriers and Facilitators Between Primary Care Providers and Patients with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with Intellectual and Developmental Disorder (IDD) have been found to have greater risks of developing physical illnesses and mental health conditions requiring access to tailored healthcare services. Effective communication is important in ensuring patient safety and optimal health outcomes. Hence, it is important to understand what features are lacking, and noted strengths in communications to provide further insights and next steps in improving patient-centered care. Methods: This survey study adopts a mixed methods design. Participants are recruited through convenience sampling from sites in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Survey questionnaires aim to evaluate primary care providers’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators encountered in health communications, and suggestions for next steps. Result: N=27 participants completed the survey. There are no statistically significant differences among the various variables. For barriers, cognitive impairment, insufficient stakeholders' involvement in health decision-making processes, and inadequate space and time for communication and collaboration are comparatively more significant. For facilitators, supporters' roles in advocating for the healthcare needs of individuals with IDDs, additional consultation time for patient education, and interprofessional collaboration were some of the more prominent factors positively influencing communications. Themes generated from the qualitative data provided further insights into the impacts support workers, teamwork, and the consent process have on health communications. Conclusion: This study suggested that more consistency in the roles of support workers, increased staff training, prolonged consultation duration, enhanced collaboration during the health consent process, and multidisciplinary collaboration are some of the strategies to further enhance health communications among patients with IDDs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".