Maternal and offspring outcomes in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risks for adverse maternal and offspring outcomes in women with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. POPULATION: Singleton obstetrical deliveries to 18- to 49-year-old women with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (n = 3932 in the exposed cohort, n = 382 774 in the unexposed cohort; 2002-2011 fiscal years). METHODS: Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities were identified based on diagnoses in health administrative data or receipt of disability income support. The unexposed cohort comprised women without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Modified Poisson regression was used to compute adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing the two cohorts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary maternal outcomes were: gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and venous thromboembolism. Primary offspring outcomes were: preterm birth, small for gestational age, and large for gestational age. RESULTS: The exposed cohort, compared with the unexposed cohort, had increased risks for pre-eclampsia (aRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.93) and venous thromboembolism (aRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.17-2.19). Their offspring had increased risks for preterm birth (aRR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.80) and small for gestational age (aRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.25-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there is a need to address modifiable risk factors for adverse outcomes among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities prior to and during pregnancy. Moreover, there is a need to enhance monitoring for maternal and offspring complications in this population. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Large cohort study: intellectual and developmental disabilities predispose women/babies to adverse outcomes.

Brief report: cervical cancer screening in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have had a pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have lower cervical cancer screening rates than women without IDD. Key barriers to screening uptake include physician or caregiver assumptions that screening is unnecessary because women with IDD are not sexually active. Our objective was to compare cervical cancer screening rates in women with and without IDD who had had a pregnancy. METHOD: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked Ontario (Canada) health and social services administrative data. We identified 20- to 64-year-old women with (N = 5033) and without (N = 527 437) IDD who had had a pregnancy. We examined the occurrence of cervical cancer screening between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2010. We compared screening rates in women with and without IDD using logistic regression, controlling for age, region of residence, neighbourhood income quintile and morbidity level. RESULTS: Women with IDD who had had a pregnancy were more likely than those without IDD to be young, to live in the lowest neighbourhood income quintile, to live in rural areas and to have high or very high morbidity. Even after controlling for these factors, women with IDD were less likely than women without IDD to be screened (67.7% vs. 77.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Even among women who have had a pregnancy and are therefore known to have been sexually active, women with IDD face significant disparities in cervical cancer screening. Strategies to promote equitable uptake of cervical cancer screening for women with IDD need to be implemented.

The uptake of secondary prevention by adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention involves the early detection of disease while it is asymptomatic to prevent its progression. For adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, secondary prevention is critical as they may not have the ability to recognize the early signs and symptoms of disease or lack accessible information about these. METHODS: Linked administrative health and social service data were used to document uptake related to four secondary prevention guidelines among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Rates were compared to those from a general population sample representing the same age ranges. RESULTS: Of 22% of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities had a periodic health examination in a two-year period (compared to 26.4% of adults without intellectual and developmental disabilities). Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities were less likely to undergo recommended age and gender-specific screening for the three types of cancer studied (colorectal, breast and cervical). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ontario experience disparities in secondary prevention. As changes to primary care delivery and secondary prevention recommendations in the province and elsewhere continue to evolve, close monitoring of the impacts on adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities combined with dedicated efforts to increase access is warranted.

Are cervical and breast cancer screening programmes equitable? The case of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Effective cancer screening must be available for all eligible individuals without discrimination. Lower rates of cervical and breast cancer screening have been reported in certain groups compared with women from the general population, such as women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Research on the factors explaining those observed differences is crucial to determine whether practices are unfair and could be improved. The aim of this population-based study was to describe cancer screening utilisation by women with IDD in Ontario, Canada compared with other women in Ontario. The specific objectives were (1) to estimate the rates of cervical and breast cancer screening among eligible women with IDD in Ontario; (2) to compare the rates of cervical and breast cancer screening between eligible women with and without IDD; and (3) to examine if any observed differences between women with and without IDD persist after factors such as age, socio-economic status, rurality and healthcare utilisation are accounted for. METHOD: This study draws women with IDD from an entire population, and draws a randomly selected comparison group from the same population. It controls for important confounders in cancer screening within the limitations of the data sources. The study was conducted using health administrative databases and registries in Ontario, Canada. Two cohorts were created: a cohort of all women identified as having an IDD and a cohort consisting of a random sample of 20% of the women without IDD. RESULTS: The proportion of women with IDD who are not screened for cervical cancer is nearly twice what it is in the women without IDD, and 1.5 times what it is for mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that women with IDD experience inequities in their access to cancer screening. Public health interventions targeting this population should be implemented.

Using administrative health data to identify individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a comparison of algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) experience high rates of physical and mental health problems; yet their health care is often inadequate. Information about their characteristics and health services needs is critical for planning efficient and equitable services. A logical source of such information is administrative health data; however, it can be difficult to identify cases with IDD in these data. The purpose of this study is to evaluate three algorithms for case finding of IDD in health administrative data. METHODS: The three algorithms were created following existing approaches in the literature which ranged between maximising sensitivity versus balancing sensitivity and specificity. The broad algorithm required only one IDD service contact across all available data and time periods, the intermediate algorithm added the restriction of a minimum of two physician visits while the narrow algorithm added a further restriction that the time period be limited to 2006 onward. The resulting three cohorts were compared according to socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Comparisons on different subgroups for a hypothetical population of 50,000 individuals with IDD were also carried out: this information may be relevant for planning specialised treatment or support programmes. RESULTS: The prevalence rates of IDD per 100 were 0.80, 0.52 and 0.18 for the broad, intermediate and narrow algorithms, respectively. Except for 'percentage with psychiatric co-morbidity', the three cohorts had similar characteristics (standardised differences < 0.1). More stringent thresholds increased the percentage of psychiatric co-morbidity and decreased the percentages of women and urban residents in the identified cohorts (standardised differences = 0.12 to 0.46). More concretely, using the narrow algorithm to indirectly estimate the number of individuals with IDD, a practice not uncommon in planning and policy development, classified nearly 7000 more individuals with psychiatric co-morbidities than using the intermediate algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rate produced by the intermediate algorithm most closely approximated the reported literature rate suggesting the value of imposing a two-physician visit minimum but not restricting the time period covered. While the statistical differences among the algorithms were generally minor, differences in the numbers of individuals in specific population subgroups may be important particularly if they have specific service needs. Health administrative data can be useful for broad-based service planning for individuals with IDD and for population level comparisons around their access and quality of care.