ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2018
Are we making a difference in primary care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities?
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the impact of the dissemination of guidelines to physicians and of a population-level health communication intervention on the percentage of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) receiving preventive care through primary care.
methodsNoninstitutionalized adults with IDD in the province of Ontario, Canada, aged 40 to 64 years were matched to Ontarians without such disabilities each fiscal year (FY) from 2003 to 2016. Health administrative data were used to create a composite measure of receipt of recommended preventive primary care. Age-adjusted rates were used to assess trends, and average two-year rate ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions.
resultsThe number of adults with IDD identified ranged from 20 030 in FY 2003 to 28 080 in FY 2016. The percentage of adults with IDD receiving recommended preventive primary care ranged from 43.4% in 2003 to 55.7% in 2015. Men with IDD had a 53.7% increase across the 13 years, while women with IDD only had a 30.9% increase. When evaluating the impact of the interventions, men with IDD were 4% more likely (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.05) to receive recommended primary care in FY 2015 and FY 2016 as compared to FY 2009 and FY 2010; in contrast, women with IDD were 5% less likely (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.93-0.98). A comparable drop was observed among women without IDD.
conclusionsNearly 45% of adults with IDD in Ontario still do not receive recommended preventive care through primary care. Long-term impacts of the interventions introduced in the province may still occur over time, so ongoing monitoring is warranted. Special attention should be given to the preventive care needs of women with IDD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.