Straight from the horse's mouth: Increasing self-report in mental health assessment in individuals with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions are common among individuals with intellectual disability. Under recognition of mental health disorders leading to unmet treatment needs is common in this population. This article addresses one major contributing factor, the lack of cognitively accessible self-report measures for individuals with intellectual disability. METHOD: In this literature-informed overview of the state of the field, we discuss the need for, and complexities of, including individuals with intellectual disability in mental health assessments. RESULTS: With appropriate supports, many individuals with intellectual disability can respond to mental health questions. We discuss evidence-based strategies to make mental health assessments more accessible. CONCLUSION: We highlight the need to engage individuals with intellectual disability to provide first-hand information about their health and well-being. New instruments and research procedures should be developed in partnership with individuals with intellectual disability. Self-report may be essential to advancing the science of mental health research.

Clinical usefulness of the diagnostic manual-intellectual disability for mental disorders in persons with intellectual disability: results from a brief field survey.

OBJECTIVE: The National Association for the Dually Diagnosed, in collaboration with the American Psychiatric Association, adapted the DSM-IV-TR for use with individuals with intellectual disability. This article presents the findings of a study to examine the utility of the Diagnostic Manual-Intellectual Disability (DM-ID) in clinical practice. METHOD: In a survey conducted during the summer of 2006, clinicians reported on the extent to which the DM-ID was user friendly, whether it allowed the clinician to arrive at an appropriate diagnosis of the patient, if the clinician was able to arrive at a more specific diagnosis than with the DSM-IV-TR, and if it helped avoid the use of "not otherwise specified" (NOS) diagnostic categories. Demographic information about the clinicians and the patients was obtained. RESULTS: Data from 63 clinicians and 845 patients with intellectual disability were included in the study. The patients' level of intellectual disability was approximately evenly divided among the categories of mild, moderate, and severe/profound. The DM-ID was rated as "easy" or "very easy" to use in over 68% of the 845 responses. The positive response to the DM-ID did not vary significantly across levels of intellectual functioning. Clinicians also indicated that the DM-ID helped them avoid the use of the "NOS" diagnosis category, resulting in a more specific diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The DM-ID is a useful adaptation of the DSM-IV-TR for persons with intellectual disability. Professionals indicated that it was easy to use, resulted in accurate diagnoses, and can reduce the use of the NOS category. Further research is needed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the DM-ID.

The diagnosis and treatment of individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities: an overview.

BACKGROUND: The assessment and treatment psychiatric disorders among individuals with developmental disorders is in a state of flux. Clinicians working in this field confront two heterogeneous conditions based on separate but overlapping biopsychosocial bodies of scientific and clinical experiences. METHODS: The paper is a review of the relevant literature and an effort to synthesize sokme of the major problem areas in differential diagnosis and treatment planning. RESULTS: There are many genetic, metabolic and neurobehavioral factors that influence both challenging behaviors and the emergence, recognition, and clinical course of mental disorders in people with developmental disorders. As such, clinicians need to redefine dichotomous thinking about boundaries between psychiatrics, neurologic, and behavioral disorders and therapies. DISCUSSION: Even though there are efforts to adapt our various systems of nomenclature for individuals with developmental disorders, most still rely on descriptive and categorical models. It may be time to reconsider models that incorporate etiological factors in the process of differential diagnosis and classification. By doing so, clinicians may enhance their capacity to match individuals with more finely tuned treatment plans.

Treatment models for treating patients with combined mental illness and developmental disability.

The presence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders among individuals with developmental disability (DD) requires clinicians to adjust and modify standard mental health assessment and treatment planning. In particular, assessment includes input from a multi-disciplinary team and as a result, diagnosis is frequently a synthesis of data from many different points of view. Treatment planning and implementation commonly include a collection of highly specialized, individualized programs that focus on the long term management of both disorders. Crises and recurrence of mental disorders are commonplace in part due to the presence of ongoing risk and vulnerability factors for mental disorders. As a result, the need for emergency interventions, specialized respite services, hospitalization and other transition services is extensive. The quality, availability and access to these services vary considerably. Many programs are concentrated in metropolitan or university-based centers and pose hardships based on geographic distance. The availability and utilization of services is affected by political, economic, socio-cultural and psychological forces that impact both the willingness to use services and the distribution of professionals trained and qualified to manage individuals with dual diagnoses. The complex interaction between each of these factors determines the structure, function, and capacity for innovation built into current service models.

Antipsychotic withdrawal-induced relapse predicts future relapses in institutionalized adults with severe intellectual disability.

Severe intellectual and developmental disabilities are frequently associated with aggression toward self and others, destruction of property, and disruption. Antipsychotic medications are a mainstay of treatment of such behaviors. National and state guidelines suggest stopping these medications or decreasing their dosages when possible if patients have maintained stability. The current study evaluated the likelihood of future antipsychotic drug withdrawal-induced relapses in those individuals where such a relapse had occurred previously. Subjects were 57 institutionalized adults with severe or profound intellectual disability. Between 1990 and 2000, each had experienced an initial activation of maladaptive aggressive behaviors after an attempt at antipsychotic drug withdrawal and/or termination. Quarterly behavioral reports were evaluated to determine whether subsequent antipsychotic drug withdrawal attempts were also associated with future relapses. Initial relapse was followed by subsequent antipsychotic drug withdrawal attempts in 49 of the 57 individuals. Between 1990 and 2005, 28.6% of these 49 subjects had experienced 1, 38.7% had 2, 20.4% had 3, and 8.2% had 4 additional relapses. Two (4.1%) had not relapsed. Eight individuals remained on antipsychotic agents without a subsequent withdrawal attempt. By the end of 2005, only 4 (7%) of the 57 individuals had become antipsychotic drug free, 22.8% were receiving first-generation antipsychotic agents alone, 45.6% were receiving second-generation antipsychotic agents alone, and 24.6% were receiving a combination of first- and second-generation antipsychotic agents. Thus, if relapse occurs after an antipsychotic drug withdrawal attempt, subsequent attempts at withdrawal are also very likely to lead to further relapses.

Relapse of aggressive and disruptive behavior in mentally retarded adults following antipsychotic drug withdrawal predicts psychotropic drug use a decade later.

BACKGROUND: Mental retardation is frequently associated with aggression toward self and others. Antipsychotic medications are frequently used as a major treatment of such aggression. However, national and state policies and guidelines are weighted toward stopping or decreasing the doses of these medications whenever possible, although exceptions are permitted. The purpose of this study was to determine if relapse during or after antipsychotic drug withdrawal in mentally retarded adults predicts continuing antipsychotic drug use an average of a decade later. METHOD: We report here on a 6- to 13-year (average 10-year) follow-up of 151 institutionalized mentally retarded adults. During the period 1990-1997, the subjects had been prescribed antipsychotic medications to treat maladaptive behaviors, primarily consisting of aggression, disruptive/destructive behaviors, or a combination of these. We compared subjects' psychotropic medication profiles in 2003 as they related to outcome during the earlier period. Our goal was to determine if rapid relapse (a clinically significant increase in maladaptive target symptoms, beginning 3 months or less after antipsychotic drug termination or dosage reduction, that was reversed by antipsychotic drug reinstitution or dosage increases) during or after routine withdrawal of an antipsychotic predicted psychotropic drug use in 2003. RESULTS: For those individuals successfully withdrawn from antipsychotic medications, 66.3% (55/83) were still psychotropic drug free in 2003. For those who rapidly relapsed during the period 1990-1997 following antipsychotic drug withdrawal or dosage decreases, only 9.0% (5/55) were psychotropic medication free in 2003. CONCLUSION: These observations support policies and guidelines indicating that attempts to stop treatment with antipsychotic medications in mentally retarded individuals are worthwhile. However, the results also indicate that eventual discontinuation of antipsychotic medications in institutionalized mentally retarded adults who have previously relapsed upon such withdrawal is unlikely to be successful. Rigid adherence to drug withdrawal policies and guidelines in such individuals should be reconsidered.

Minimally effective doses of conventional antipsychotic medications used to treat aggression, self-injurious and destructive behaviors in mentally retarded adults.

Retrospective review of records from 1990 to 1997 revealed unsuccessful attempts to withdraw antipsychotic medications from a total of 34 intellectually disabled individuals. The lowest dose of antipsychotic medication necessary to maintain symptom suppression and the dose at which relapse occurred were noted. Target behaviors observed indicating relapse included increased self-injurious behavior, aggression, and destructive/disruptive behaviors. Nineteen subjects received a low potency antipsychotic agent (ie, thioridazine or chlorpromazine) and 15 received a high potency antipsychotic agent (ie, haloperidol, loxapine, thiothixene). The mean lowest effective dose of chlorpromazine/thioridazine was 149.3 mg/d and relapse occurred at a mean dose of 93.6 mg/d. The mean lowest effective dose of haloperidol or related high potency drugs (expressed as haloperidol equivalents) was 5.9 mg/d, and relapse occurred at a mean dose of 3.8 mg/d.

Olanzapine for self-injurious, aggressive, and disruptive behaviors in intellectually disabled adults: a retrospective, open-label, naturalistic trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of olanzapine in treating challenging behaviors in the intellectually disabled and its ability to substitute for conventional antipsychotic drugs were evaluated. METHOD: A total of 20 institutionalized adults with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 18-55 years) with intellectual disability and aggression, self-injurious behavior, destructive/disruptive behavior, or combinations of these behaviors were studied. These individuals were receiving multiple psychotropic medications at baseline and were given additional treatment with the atypical antipsychotic agent olanzapine. The mean dose of olanzapine was 9.1 mg/day (range, 2.5-22.5 mg/day). Effectiveness was determined by retrospective review of the summaries of quarterly neuropsychiatric behavioral reviews and retrospective review of longitudinal behavioral graphs of target symptoms. Data were collected from 1995 to 2000. RESULTS: A significant decrease in global challenging behaviors and specific target behaviors (i.e., aggression, self-injurious behaviors, destructive/disruptive behaviors) occurred (p <.05). A numerical decrease in the dosage of concurrent conventional antipsychotic medications occurred over the course of the first 6 months of olanzapine therapy, and a statistically significant (p <.005) decrease from the start of olanzapine therapy occurred in those subjects who received olanzapine for longer than 6 months (mean = 20.3 months). A significant increase in weight occurred in the subject group during the first 6 months of olanzapine treatment (p <.006), and sedation and constipation were the other common side effects noted. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine was found to be effective in the treatment of challenging behaviors in the intellectually disabled and in part could be substituted for administration of conventional antipsychotic drugs.