Interventions to reduce falls in community-dwelling adults with intellectual disability: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disability have a high risk of falls and falls-related injuries. Although people with intellectual disability are at increased risk of falls, there is a need to better understand the efficacy of interventions that can help reduce falls and address risk factors in this population. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the type, nature and effectiveness of interventions undertaken to reduce falls with community-dwelling adults with intellectual disability and the quality of this evidence. METHOD: Four electronic databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they involved people aged 18 years or over, at least 50% of study participants had intellectual disability, participants were community-dwelling, and the study evaluated any interventions aiming to reduce falls. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tools. Reporting of the review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Seven studies were eligible for review, with a total of 286 participants and mean age of 50.4 years. As only one randomised trial was identified, a narrative synthesis of results was undertaken. Five studies evaluated exercise interventions, one evaluated a falls clinic programme, and one evaluated stretch fabric splinting garments. Methodological quality varied (two studies rated as good, four as fair, and one as poor). Exercise interventions varied in terms of exercise type and dosage, frequency and intensity, and most did not align with recommendations for successful falls prevention exercise interventions reported for older people. While the majority of studies reported reduced falls, they differed in methods of reporting falls, and most did not utilise statistical analyses to evaluate outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review identified a small number of falls prevention intervention studies for people with intellectual disability. Although several studies reported improvements in fall outcomes, ability to draw conclusions about intervention effectiveness is limited by small sample sizes and few studies. Further large-scale research is required to implement and evaluate falls prevention interventions specifically for adults with intellectual disability.

The Outcomes and Impact Scale - Revised: the psychometric properties of a scale assessing the impact of service provision.

BACKGROUND: The Outcomes and Impact Scale - Revised (O&IS-R) was developed to measure the impact of service provision on adults with disability. The aim of this research was to explore the psychometric properties of the scale following a recent revision. METHOD: Adults with disability and/or their carers or support workers participated in the research. Participants were recruited across Australia using a range of strategies and completed the scale in relation to a service or support that they nominated. Two forms of the scale were developed (easy and standard English), which could be completed in hardcopy or via a bespoke website. RESULTS: The O&IS-R demonstrated good internal consistency and alternate form reliability. Factor analysis of the scale revealed one factor that clearly corresponded to the whole of life construct that the scale was designed to measure and, in general, participants with disability and staff understood the intent or purpose of the survey. All domains except the spiritual and political domain were considered to be relevant service outcomes. Some changes to wording were suggested to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The O&IS-R is a psychometrically sound scale that can be used in service and research settings to measure the impact of services and supports.

Weight, nutrition, food choice, and physical activity in adults with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the nutrition, food choice, physical activity and weight status in a group of adults with intellectual disability (ID) in Victoria, Australia. METHOD: Disability workers and adults with ID were recruited through disability services. In total, 51 disability workers (11 men, 40 women) and 68 (47 men, 21 women) adults with ID participated in the research. Disability workers provided information about the nutrition, food choice and physical activity levels of adults with ID through a questionnaire administered by a general practitioner or research nurse. The questionnaire also included The Australian Nutrition Screening Initiative checklist. RESULTS: Body Mass Index was in the healthy range for only 37.5% of participants and in the obese range for almost half (41%). Similarly, the majority of participants had an abdominal circumference in a range that put them at increased or substantially increased risk of metabolic complications. The mean score obtained on the Australian Nutrition Screening Initiative checklist indicated a moderate risk of malnutrition (M = 4.2); however, 17.6% of participants achieved scores that put them in the high-risk category. More than half of the participants were reported to have a little choice in the type of food they ate and when they ate. Physical activity data indicated that the majority of participants (60.3%) did not meet national physical activity guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that people with ID are at risk of developing diseases associated with obesity, inactivity, and poor nutrition. Strategies to encourage people with ID to engage in physical activity and healthy eating are, therefore, a matter of priority and should involve their disability workers.

Psychometric comparison of the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF).

BACKGROUND: The Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) are frequently used to assess the learned function of challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability (ID). The aim was to explore and compare the psychometric properties of the MAS and the QABF. METHOD: Seventy adults with ID and challenging behaviour and their disability support workers participated in the study. Support workers completed the MAS and QABF regarding a challenging behaviour that they identified as causing most concern. RESULTS: Both measures demonstrated good internal consistency. Based on the intra-class correlation coefficient, inter-rater reliability of the MAS and QABF was acceptable for sub-scale scores, but not for individual items. Convergent validity, as reflected by correlations between functionally analogous scales, was satisfactory, but there was low agreement between the MAS and QABF on the function of challenging behaviour. Factor analysis of the QABF revealed factors that clearly corresponded to the five factors reported by the developers, four of which were well determined. Similar analyses of the MAS yielded a four-factor solution, however, only one factor was well determined. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the MAS and QABF were similar, and item-by-item reliability was problematic. The results suggest that both measures may prove unreliable for assessing the function of challenging behaviour among adults with ID. In developing interventions to address challenging behaviour, other techniques (e.g. observations) should be used to supplement information from these measures.

The impact of caring for adults with intellectual disability on the quality of life of parents.

BACKGROUND: Because of an increase in life expectancy and de-institutionalisation, many adults with intellectual disability (ID) live with and are cared for by their parents throughout their adult lives. Because of caring demands, the quality of life (QOL) of parents may be affected. The study explored the impact of caring for an adult with ID on the QOL of parents. METHODS: Participants were 12 parents who were the full-time carers of an adult with ID. Participants were interviewed about the effect of caring on their QOL. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Caring had a positive impact on QOL by enabling participants to develop relationships and receive support, participate in leisure activities, achieve a sense of personal satisfaction and enable a more positive appraisal of their lives. Caring had a negative impact on participants' QOL by restricting their relationships, leisure activities and employment opportunities. Caring was also associated with financial insecurity, frustrations at the service system and fear of what the future held for their offspring. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for an adult with ID had both positive and negative effects on parents' QOL. Improving services and service delivery, including the provision of residential services and respite, would address many of the issues that were reported to have a negative impact on parents' QOL.

Part II. General practitioner-specialist referral process.

This is the second of two articles that explore the general practitioner (GP)-specialist relationship. In this article, we explore the nature of the referral process, beginning with referrals frequently made by GPs in Australia and reasons for referral to specialists. In Australia, GPs commonly refer patients to specialists, particularly orthopaedic surgeons, ophthalmologists, surgeons and gynaecologists for a variety of reasons, including diagnosis or investigation, treatment and reassurance (reassurance for themselves as well as reassurance for the patient). GPs will choose a specialist after considering a variety of factors, such as the specialist's medical skill, their previous experience with the specialist, the quality of communication between them, office location and patient preferences. The referral is generally made by telephone or by letter, the latter of which is known to vary significantly in content and quality. The specialist, GP and patient expectations of the referral and the consultation process are also described. Specialists expect the GP to provide information about the problem to be addressed and adequate patient history, GPs expect a clear response regarding diagnosis and management as well as justification for the course of action, and patients expect clear communication and explanation of the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up requirements. When these expectations remain unmet, GPs, specialists and patients end up dissatisfied with the referral process.

Part I. General practitioner-specialist relationship.

This article is the first of a two-part series that seeks to explore the relationship and interaction between general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists. A historical account of the medical profession is given, beginning from the tripartite division (i.e. the physicians, surgeons or barbers and the apothecaries), the Apothecaries Act of 1815, and the Medical Act of 1858. An account is also given of factors that exacerbated the division and friction between GPs and specialists, and how general practice developed in Australia. The role of the GP is stated as the provision of primary care, preventive care, patient-centred care, continuing care, comprehensive care, and community-based care to individuals and their families. The role of the specialists on the other hand is that of a consultant to advise GPs who carry on the management after the patient leaves the specialist. The dynamics of the GP-specialist relationship are discussed in relation to power, interdependence, morale, public image, education and training, and support from the Colleges, and we conclude by discussing the importance of collaboration between professions.