Exploring chronic disease prevalence in people with intellectual disabilities in primary care settings: A scoping review.
Milou van den Bemd, Maarten Cuypers, Erik W M A Bischoff and 3 others
PMID 34750946WHAT IT FOUND
Chronic disease prevalence in people with intellectual disabilities varied widely across primary care studies.
Diabetes was often higher, heart disease and COPD often lower, but patterns changed with country, age, data type and how intellectual disabilities were identified.
Key findings
01Ischaemic heart disease prevalence ranged from 0.0% to 5.7% in people with intellectual disabilities and from 0.0% to 7.7% in people without intellectual disabilities, and in most studies it was lower in people with intellectual disabilities.
02Diabetes mellitus prevalence ranged from 0.7% to 11.5% in people with intellectual disabilities and from 0.4% to 19.3% in people without intellectual disabilities, and it was mostly higher in people with intellectual disabilities except when prevalence in the comparison group exceeded 10%.
03Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence ranged from 1.1% to 6.4% in people with intellectual disabilities and from 1.4% to 9.5% in people without intellectual disabilities, and it was lower in people with intellectual disabilities in all but one study.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
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
This is a scoping review, not a pooled estimate, so it does not provide one reliable prevalence number for people with intellectual disabilities. Only 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, and they differed in country, age, data source, definition of intellectual disabilities, and sample size. No non-Western studies were identified, so the reported patterns mainly represent Western countries. Few studies separated diabetes type, stroke type, or severity levels of intellectual disabilities, which limits how precisely the findings can be applied to specific patients. Quality appraisal was mixed: eight studies were rated high, eight medium, and three low. Sample sizes varied widely, from 78 to 153,993 people with intellectual disabilities, and larger samples often showed lower diabetes and COPD prevalence. The review focused only on ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes and COPD, not other chronic conditions that may be more common in people with intellectual disabilities.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the reported prevalence ranges as a single expected rate for your patients. The review did not pool the studies, and rates changed with country, age, data source, and how intellectual disabilities were identified.