Mental health problems affect people with intellectual disabilities (ID) at rates similar to or in excess of the non-ID population. People with severe ID are likely to have persistent mental health problems. In this systematic review (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015024469), we identify and evaluate the methodological quality of available measures of mental health problems or well-being in individuals with severe or profound ID. Electronic searches of ten databases identified relevant publications. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts of retrieved records (n=41,232) and full-text articles (n=573). Data were extracted and the quality of included papers was appraised. Thirty-two papers reporting on 12 measures were included. Nine measures addressed a broad spectrum of mental health problems, and were largely observational. One physiological measure of well-being was included. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist, Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped Scale-II and Mood, Interest and Pleasure Questionnaire are reliable measures in this population. However, the psychometric properties of six other measures were only considered within a single study - indicating a lack of research replication. Few mental health measures are available for people with severe or profound ID, particularly lacking are tools measuring well-being. Assessment methods that do not rely on proxy reports should be explored further.
Active Support was more effective following complete staff training, in larger settings, at lower staff-to-resident ratios and with less experienced staff. Active Support training and outcomes were valued by staff and residents (RQ2), and staff experienced increased job satisfaction. Lower staff turnover and organizational readiness appear crucial for maintaining implementation.
Purpose: Caring for people with cancer or an intellectual disability (ID) is stressful: little is known about the combined impact of caring for cancer patients with an ID, though this is expected to be especially challenging. Method: Eighty-three nurses, working in oncology or a related field (i.e. palliative care) were recruited. Perceptions of caring for patients with and without an ID were measured, alongside potentially confounding information about participant demographic characteristics and perceived stress. Results: Participants felt less comfortable communicating with patients with an ID about their illness (F(1,82) = 59.52, p < 0.001), more reliant on a caregiver for communication (F(1,82) = 26.29, p < 0.001), and less confident that the patient's needs would be identified (F(1,82) = 42.03, p < 0.001) and met (F(1,81) = 62.90, p < 0.001). Participants also believed that caring for this patient group would induce more stress, compared with patients without an ID (F(1,81) = 31.592, p < 0.001). Previous experience working with ID patient groups appears to mitigate some perceptions about providing care to this population. Conclusions: Caring for cancer patients with an ID may intensify this, already difficult, role. Through training and knowledge exchange, oncology nurse's confidence in communication, providing appropriate care, and positivity towards this patient group may be improved
This is the first large-scale RCT of a co-produced training course delivered by people with ID. Findings indicated a small positive (but statistically non-significant) effect on increased staff empathy at 20 weeks, and small to moderate effects for staff reported secondary outcomes in favour of the intervention group.
Interestingly, emergent concepts were consistent with general psycho-oncology literature; however, incidence and severity of difficulty was substantially greater in this sample. This disparity warrants further exploration, with a need for intervention research to develop effective ways of supporting health care professionals in enhancing patient-centered skills with this population. In the clinical setting, patient involvement in health care decisions (despite problems associated with comorbidity) is imperative to optimize engagement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.