Social Internet Use by People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.
Johanna L L van Alem, Noud Frielink, Petri J C M Embregts
PMID 39844698WHAT IT FOUND
People with intellectual disabilities use the internet primarily to feel like others, maintain existing ties, make new friends or partners, and gain autonomy.
Support should focus on these personal motivations rather than just restricting access to prevent perceived risks.
Key findings
01The review identified four main reasons for social internet use: a feeling of fitting in, maintaining connections, making new connections, and enhancing autonomy and empowerment.
02The predominant reason cited was the preservation of connections, identified in 16 of the included studies.
03A majority of studies found that social internet use helped people with intellectual disabilities feel 'like others' and engaged with social groups.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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 included studies regardless of quality to provide a comprehensive overview, with some studies receiving low methodological appraisal scores. Most included studies focused on people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, limiting the generalizability of findings to those with profound and multiple disabilities. The studies relied on self-reports or caregiver reports, which may not fully capture the objective impact of internet use on well-being. The review excluded quantitative studies, so it cannot report on the prevalence or statistical strength of these motivations.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by ZonMw.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these motivations apply equally to all people with intellectual disabilities. The review primarily covered those with mild to moderate disabilities who could articulate their experiences, so the findings may not reflect the needs or capabilities of individuals with profound and multiple disabilities.