What do people with intellectual disabilities, their family members and paid carers understand about psychotropic medication? A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication than the general population and are frequently prescribed multiple medications. Understanding people with intellectual disabilities and carer perspectives is essential to improving the quality of psychotropic medication prescribing and usage. METHOD: A rapid review explored people with intellectual disabilities' understanding of psychotropic medications, as well as family members and paid carers, and how this understanding can be improved. RESULTS: Twenty-one journal articles were included. Lack of understanding of medication was universal, with participants often unaware of adverse effects, alternatives, and rights around medication. There was also a lack of involvement in decision making for all participants. Some interventions aimed at people with intellectual disabilities or paid carers helped to improve knowledge. CONCLUSION: Evaluating how best to improve psychotropic medication understanding for people with intellectual disabilities, family members and paid carers should be a focus for future research.

Annual health checks for people with intellectual disabilities: An exploration of experiences, follow-up and self-management of health conditions.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how health issues identified at the annual health check (AHC) are followed up and addressed, how participants self-manage their health in between AHCs, and what support they receive. This research aimed to explore this. METHODS: People with intellectual disabilities (n = 12), and/or their supporters residing in Wales, were interviewed following their AHC and again at 6 and 11 months. A recurrent cross-sectional thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from interview one: going for a health check, issues identified, and actions taken, supporting the self-management of health, the personal context, and addressing health inequities. Four main themes emerged from follow-up interviews: follow-up, supporting the self-management of health, the need for reasonably adjusted health services, and going for another health check. CONCLUSION: A broader system of support around the AHC is required if people are to achieve or maintain the best possible health.

Speaking the same language - a scoping review to identify the terminology associated with social prescribing.

AIM: To identify the social prescribing-related terminology within the peer-reviewed literature of the UK and the grey literature from Wales. BACKGROUND: Social prescribing has seen a period of development that has been accompanied by a proliferation of related terminology and a lack of standardisation in the manner in which it is employed. This creates barriers to engagement and impairs communication, both between professionals and members of the public. The Wales School for Social Prescribing Research and Public Health Wales committed to the development of a glossary of terms for social prescribing, to facilitate the clarification and standardisation of the associated terminology. Here, we describe the first step in that process. METHOD: A scoping review of the peer-reviewed UK literature and Welsh grey literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of 46,242 documents and the full text of 738 documents were screened. Data were charted from 205 documents. Data capture included terminology, the location within the UK of the research or intervention described in the article, and the perspective from which the article was authored. A general inductive approach was used to categorise the terms by theme. FINDINGS: This research serves to highlight the breadth and diversity of the terminology associated with social prescribing. Results demonstrate aspects of shared commonality and clear distinction between the terminology from the two literature sources. The greatest contributions of terms were from articles that examined research and/or interventions in England and that were authored from the perspective of health or health and social care. The research indicates that nation- and sector-specific terms may not be adequately represented in the literature at large. Looking forward, it will be important to ensure that social prescribing terminology within the UK literature is culturally relevant and accurately reflects the terminology used by the workforce who encounter and deliver social prescribing.