Online Health Literacy Resources for People With Intellectual Disability: A Grey Literature Scoping Review.
Jessica Keeley, Zhenmei Yeap, Rachel Skoss and 4 others
PMID 40751543WHAT IT FOUND
Online health resources for people with intellectual disability mostly cover tests and physical health but lack content for young people's mental health, sexual health, and men's health.
While most use accessible language, very few help users evaluate or apply the information.
Key findings
01Mental health resources were significantly less frequent for children and adolescents compared to adults, and sexual and men's health topics were the least covered overall.
02Although nearly all resources helped users access and understand information, far fewer addressed the ability to appraise or apply that health information.
03The quality and evidence base of the identified resources were not evaluated, so they may not represent the best available or most accurate information.
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The review did not assess the quality, accuracy, or evidence base of the resources, so some information may be outdated or incorrect. The search was limited to English-language resources and specific search terms, potentially missing resources for Indigenous Australians or culturally and linguistically diverse groups. The sample does not represent all online health information globally, only what was found through specific search strategies. The study did not check if the resources met technical web accessibility standards (e.g., screen reader compatibility).
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and a Fellowship from the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that because a resource is in Easy Read format, it is high-quality or evidence-based. The review explicitly did not evaluate the accuracy of the information, and most resources do not help users critically appraise what they are reading.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →