Background Primary care providers require accurate evidence on chronic disease prevalence in people with intellectual disabilities in order to apply this information into practice. This study aimed to map the broadness of literature on chronic disease prevalence in people with and without intellectual disabilities, and to explore main characteristics of these studies. Method A scoping review of peer‐reviewed literature was conducted, covering 2000 to February 2020, including literature that discussed chronic disease prevalence in people with and without intellectual disabilities, with similar data collection method for both groups. Results Nineteen studies were included. Chronic disease prevalence varied considerably between people with and without intellectual disabilities. Studies differed in their methodologies, country and age groups that were enrolled. Conclusions Primary care providers should interpret results on disease prevalence among people with intellectual disabilities in light of the study characteristics. Researchers should always interpret prevalence rates in the context of methodology.

T he global COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on persons in long-term care (1), particularly persons with intellectual disabilities (2). Persons with intellectual disabilities experience many limitations in adaptive behavior and intellectual functioning that occur before adulthood (3). Consequently, their ability to understand and adhere to restrictive measures is impaired. Social distancing is challenging for persons with intellectual disabilities living in group homes or during close contact when receiving care (4-8). In addition, genetic syndromes that cause intellectual disabilities, such as Down syndrome, might contribute to the susceptibility to and severity of . Persons with intellectual disabilities often have concurrent conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular problems, and being overweight (body mass index [BMI] >25 kg/m 2 ) (10,13-16); they also are at increased risk for death from respiratory problems (17). Furthermore, COVID-19 pandemic risks can exacerbate health disparities among persons with intellectual disabilities (2,18).Previous studies have shown substantially higher COVID-19 case rates, more hospital admissions, and higher case-fatality rates (CFRs) for persons with intellectual disabilities than for the general population, but those studies included relatively small sample sizes or were conducted during distinct periods of the pandemic (6,(9)(10)(11)(19)(20)(21)(22). Besides the identified risk factors, intellectual disability also appeared to be an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes, although the extent to which disability severity contributes is still unclear (9,12,19,20). Similarly, whereas pathogenicity of post-COVID-19 conditions is still emerging, specific characteristics among persons with intellectual disabilities and persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms are potentially unrecognized and unclear (23).Because population surveillance for COVID-19 does not include information about disabilities, complete and integrated information about this vulnerable subgroup is lacking and potentially contributing to growing health disparities. To delineate specific factors driving excess risks for persons with intellectual disabilities infected with SARS-CoV-2, more information on the dynamic course of the outbreak, risk

Background: Disease management programmes (DMPs) have been introduced to deliver standardised, high-quality care to patients with chronic diseases. Although chronic diseases are common among people with intellectual disabilities (ID), this approach may be suboptimal for meeting their care needs. Aim: To examine differences between chronically ill patients with and without ID in DMP enrolment and disease monitoring in Dutch general practice. Design and Setting: An observational study utilising the Nivel Primary Care Database (2015–2018) comparing patients with ID and cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with matched (1:5) controls without ID. Method: Using conditional logistic regression, we examined enrolment in DMP per chronic disease and tested differences between groups in the frequencies of consultations, medication prescriptions, and routine examinations. Results: We matched 2,653 chronically ill patients with ID with 13,265 controls without ID. DM patients with ID were more likely than controls to be enrolled in DMP (OR=1.44, 95%CI=1.27–1.64). Independent of DMP enrolment, chronically ill patients with ID were more likely than controls to be frequent consulters. DM patients and COPD patients with ID not enrolled in DMPs had more medication prescriptions than non-enrolled patients without ID (OR=1.46, CI=1.10–1.95; OR=1.28; CI=0.99–1.66, respectively). Most patients with ID and their controls enrolled in DMPs received routine examinations at similar frequencies. Conclusion: Although DMPs do not specifically address the needs of chronically ill patients with ID, these patients do not seem underserved in the management of chronic diseases in terms of consultation, medication, and tests.