An international study of public contact with people who have an intellectual disability.
R McConkey, P Slater, L Dubois and 2 others
PMID 33404100WHAT IT FOUND
Most people report little contact with those who have intellectual disability.
Those with frequent contact were more comfortable meeting them. Contact was linked to volunteering, Special Olympics involvement, working in health or education, and being a parent. This is descriptive survey data, not evidence that interventions work.
Key findings
01Frequent personal contact was reported by 28.6% of respondents, while 41.3% reported no personal contact.
02Volunteer experience and active involvement with Special Olympics were the strongest predictors of having frequent personal contact.
03Respondents with frequent personal contact reported higher comfort levels when meeting a person with intellectual disability.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The survey was conducted online, which biased the sample towards university-educated respondents. Countries were selected based on Special Olympics presence or planned events, potentially skewing awareness levels. The study did not include low-income nations. The design is cross-sectional and descriptive, so it cannot determine if contact causes increased comfort or if comfort leads to more contact. Formal ethical approval was not sought, relying instead on market research industry codes of practice.
Declared interests
The study was funded by ESPN, the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, and the United States Office of Special Education Programs. Special Olympics Inc. commissioned the analysis, and three authors are employed by Special Olympics Inc.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the link between contact and comfort as proof that facilitating contact will reduce stigma or improve attitudes. This is a descriptive survey showing an association, not a trial testing an intervention. The authors note that the models explained only a small amount of variance, meaning many other factors likely influence public attitudes.