PTOTSLPQualitativeJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2022

'It's working together with what you've got': Healthcare professionals' experiences of working with people with combined intellectual disability and personality disorder diagnoses.

Nicolò Zarotti, Clive Hudson, Hannah-Rose Human and 2 others

PMID 35725900

WHAT IT FOUND

Clinicians working with people who have both intellectual disability and personality disorder traits often found the diagnosis hard to make and risky to apply.

They focused on the person's story rather than the label, used clear boundaries to manage dependency, and relied on team cohesion to handle the emotional demands.

Key findings

01Healthcare professionals reported that diagnosing personality disorder in people with intellectual disability was difficult due to overlapping symptoms and the individuals' inability to engage in standard assessments, leading many to describe 'traits' rather than formal diagnoses.

02The majority of participants agreed that a person-centred approach, focusing on the individual's narrative and presentation rather than their diagnostic label, was essential for assessment and care.

03Managing these cases required significant adjustments, including setting clear boundaries to prevent dependency and relying on multidisciplinary team cohesion to share the emotional and clinical burden.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study included only healthcare professionals, so it does not capture the perspectives of patients or their families. Participants were from a specific region in the UK (East Anglia) and used convenience sampling, so findings may not apply to other settings or populations. As a qualitative service evaluation, the findings are exploratory and cannot be generalised or used to measure clinical outcomes.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and reported no funding sources.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret these themes as evidence that person-centred approaches or boundary-setting improve patient outcomes. The study describes what clinicians experienced and believed, not what was measured to work.

Read it on PubMed →