Borderline Intellectual Functioning: Consensus and good practice guidelines

Introducción: El funcionamiento intelectual límite (FIL) se conceptualiza actualmente como la barrera que separa el funcionamiento intelectual «normal» de la discapacidad intelectual (CI 71-85). A pesar de su magnitud, su prevalencia no puede ser cuantificada y no se ha operativizado su diagnóstico. Objetivos: Elaborar un marco conceptual para el FIL y establecer directrices de consenso que permitan la aplicación de una atención integral centrada en la persona. Metodología: Se utilizó una metodología mixta cualitativa que combinaba un análisis del marco conceptual con el desarrollo de grupos nominales. Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica extensiva en bases de datos de evidencia médica, publicaciones científicas y literatura gris. Se estudió la información encontrada y se redactó un documento de marco conceptual sobre el FIL. Resultados: Las publicaciones centradas en el colectivo de personas con FIL son escasas. El término que mayor número de publicaciones arrojó fue «Borderline Intelligence». Se detectaron una serie de temas sobre los que era necesario alcanzar un consenso y se redactó un documento con las conclusiones del grupo de trabajo. Conclusiones: Es necesario establecer un consenso a nivel internacional sobre el constructo del FIL y sus criterios operativos, y desarrollar instrumentos específicos de detección y diagnóstico. También es necesario elaborar criterios que permitan calcular su incidencia y prevalencia. Saber qué intervenciones son las más adecuadas y cuáles son las necesidades de atención que presenta este colectivo es de vital importancia para implementar un modelo de atención integral centrado en la persona(AU)

Introduction: The Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) is conceptualised as the frontier that delimits ‘‘normal’’ intellectual functioning from intellectual disability (IQ 71-85). In spite of its magnitude, its prevalence cannot be quantified and its diagnosis has not yet been defined. Objectives: To elaborate a conceptual framework and to establish consensus guidelines. Method: A mixed qualitative methodology, including frame analysis and nominal groups techniques, was used. The literature was extensively reviewed in evidence based medical databases, scientific publications, and the grey literature. This information was studied and a framing document was prepared. Results: Scientific publications covering BIF are scarce. The term that yields a bigger number of results is ‘‘Borderline Intelligence’’. The Working Group detected a number of areas in which consensus was needed and wrote a consensus document covering the conclusions of the experts and the framing document. Conclusions: It is a priority to reach an international consensus about the BIF construct and its operative criteria, as well as to develop specific tools for screening and diagnosis. It is also necessary to define criteria that enable its incidence and prevalence. To know what interventions are the most efficient, and what are the needs of this population, is vital to implement an integral model of care centred on the individual(AU)

Borderline intellectual functioning: consensus and good practice guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) is conceptualized as the frontier that delimits "normal" intellectual functioning from intellectual disability (IQ 71-85). In spite of its magnitude, its prevalence cannot be quantified and its diagnosis has not yet been defined. OBJECTIVES: To elaborate a conceptual framework and to establish consensus guidelines. METHOD: A mixed qualitative methodology, including frame analysis and nominal groups techniques, was used. The literature was extensively reviewed in evidence based medical databases, scientific publications, and the grey literature. This information was studied and a framing document was prepared. RESULTS: Scientific publications covering BIF are scarce. The term that yields a bigger number of results is "Borderline Intelligence". The Working Group detected a number of areas in which consensus was needed and wrote a consensus document covering the conclusions of the experts and the framing document. CONCLUSIONS: It is a priority to reach an international consensus about the BIF construct and its operative criteria, as well as to develop specific tools for screening and diagnosis. It is also necessary to define criteria that enable its incidence and prevalence. To know what interventions are the most efficient, and what are the needs of this population, is vital to implement an integral model of care centred on the individual.

La salud en personas con discapacidad intelectual en España: estudio europeo POMONA-II / Health among persons with intellectual disability in Spain: the European POMONA-II study

Introducción. Estudios internacionales demuestran que existe un patrón diferenciado de salud y una disparidad en la atención sanitaria entre personas con discapacidad intelectual (DI) y población general. Objetivo. Obtener datos sobre el estado de salud de las personas con DI y compararlos con datos de población general. Pacientes y métodos. Se utilizó el conjunto de indicadores de salud P15 en una muestra de 111 sujetos con DI. Los datos de salud encontrados se compararon según el tipo de residencia de los sujetos y se utilizó la Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2006 para comparar estos datos con los de la población general.Resultados. La muestra con DI presentó 25 veces más casos de epilepsia y el doble de obesidad. Un 20% presentó dolor bucal, y existió una alta presencia de problemas sensoriales, de movilidad y psicosis. Sin embargo, encontramos una baja presencia de patologías como la diabetes, la hipertensión, la osteoartritis y la osteoporosis. También presentaron una menor participación en programas de prevención y promoción de la salud, un mayor número de ingresos hospitalarios y un uso menor de los servicios de urgencia. Conclusiones. El patrón de salud de las personas con DI difiere del de la población general, y éstas realizan un uso distinto de los servicios sanitarios. Es importante el desarrollo de programas de promoción de salud y de formación profesional específicamente diseñados para la atención de personas con DI, así como la implementación de encuestas de salud que incluyan datos sobre esta población (AU)

Introduction. International studies show that both the pattern of health and the healthcare provided for persons with intellectual disability (ID) and the general population are different. Aims. To obtain data about the state of health of persons with ID and to compare them with data about the general population. Patients and methods. The P15 set of health indicators was used in a sample of 111 subjects with ID. The health data that were found were compared according to the subjects’ type of residence and the 2006 National Health Survey was used to compare these data with those for the general population. Results. The sample with ID presented 25 times more cases of epilepsy and twice as many cases of obesity. Twenty per cent presented pain in the mouth and the presence of sensory and mobility problems, as well as psychosis, was high. We also found, however, a low presence of pathologies like diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. They also displayed a lower rate of participation in prevention and health promotion programmes, a higher number of hospital admissions and a lower usage of emergency services. Conclusions. The pattern of health of persons with ID differs from that of the general population, and they use healthcare services differently. It is important to develop programmes of health promotion and professional training that are specifically designed to attend to the needs of persons with ID. Likewise, it is also necessary to implement health surveys that include data about this population (AU)

[Health among persons with intellectual disability in Spain: the European POMONA-II study]. / La salud en personas con discapacidad intelectual en España: estudio europeo POMONA-II.

INTRODUCTION: International studies show that both the pattern of health and the healthcare provided for persons with intellectual disability (ID) and the general population are different. AIMS: To obtain data about the state of health of persons with ID and to compare them with data about the general population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The P15 set of health indicators was used in a sample of 111 subjects with ID. The health data that were found were compared according to the subjects' type of residence and the 2006 National Health Survey was used to compare these data with those for the general population. RESULTS; The sample with ID presented 25 times more cases of epilepsy and twice as many cases of obesity. Twenty per cent presented pain in the mouth and the presence of sensory and mobility problems, as well as psychosis, was high. We also found, however, a low presence of pathologies like diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. They also displayed a lower rate of participation in prevention and health promotion programmes, a higher number of hospital admissions and a lower usage of emergency services. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of health of persons with ID differs from that of the general population, and they use healthcare services differently. It is important to develop programmes of health promotion and professional training that are specifically designed to attend to the needs of persons with ID. Likewise, it is also necessary to implement health surveys that include data about this population.