Dataset Information

Differentiating care for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning: a Delphi study on the opinions of primary and professional caregivers and scientists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The demand for support for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning is growing rapidly. These persons often encounter individual and familial limitations that influence their human functioning, and often have difficulty coping with the demands of modern society. Although in the areas of policy, research and practice, people with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning are generally approached as one group, important differences between them have been reported. Current support seems to be both suboptimal and insufficiently differentiated.

Methods

In this Delphi study we aimed to explore the need for appropriate and differentiated support for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning. The study was based on five unique profiles of persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning that are associated with individual and environmental variables. The opinions of expert primary caregivers, professional caregivers and scientists were analysed for potentially appropriate types of support for each of the five profiles.

Results

A total of 174 statements, divided over the five profiles, were presented to the participants. For 74 statements, consensus was reached between the expert groups. For each profile, these consensual statements represented specific items (e.g. concrete personal goals) and non-specific items (e.g. the attitude towards persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning, and the coordination of health care) related to the support needs.

Conclusion

This Delphi-based study generated consensual opinions contributing to a more differentiated system of support for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning. Although these findings need additional investigation, they address actions that might enhance the support programmes for these individuals into more personalized support.

SUBMITTER: Nouwens PJG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7008567 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differentiating care for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning: a Delphi study on the opinions of primary and professional caregivers and scientists.

Nouwens Peter J G PJG Smulders Nienke B M NBM Embregts Petri J C M PJCM van Nieuwenhuizen Chijs C

BMC psychiatry 20200210 1

<h4>Background</h4>The demand for support for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning is growing rapidly. These persons often encounter individual and familial limitations that influence their human functioning, and often have difficulty coping with the demands of modern society. Although in the areas of policy, research and practice, people with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning are generally approached as one group, imp ...[more]

PMID: 32039715

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoor working memory, lower IQ and maladaptive behaviour form a triple disability known to have negative effects on the academic and social development of children with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF; IQ: 70 < IQ < 85) and neuropsychiatric disorders [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD)]. Treatment possibilities for these children are scarce and hardly evidence based. This study primarily investigated whether adaptive computerised working memory training (WMT) may lead to significantly more improvement on a non-trained visuospatial WM task compared with a non-adaptive control WMT (placebo) in children with BIF and neuropsychiatric disorders. As secondary outcome measures, we used the scores on several non-trained neuropsychological near-transfer and far-transfer tasks as well as behavioural measures.MethodWe conducted a triple-blind placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial in 72 children (aged 10;0-13;11 years, 53 boys, 19 girls) with BIF and comorbid neuropsychiatric disorders (ADHD = 37, ASD = 21, both = 14) that were referred to child and adolescent psychiatry care, between May 2012 and March 2019. Children completed the Dutch version of Cogmed WMT, either the adaptive training version or the non-adaptive placebo version, 25 sessions (30-45 min a day), for 5 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the score on a non-trained visuospatial working memory task. The primary outcome was measured before and directly after 5 weeks of WMT and again 6 months after training.ResultsA total of 375 children were screened for eligibility and 72 were randomised. No significantly higher levels of improvement over time were found on our primary outcome measure in the experimental WMT group compared with the placebo control WMT, nor in the secondary (near-transfer and far-transfer tasks) or tertiary (behavioural measures) outcome measures. However, this study did show changes over time for these measurements for both the experimental and placebo conditions.ConclusionsThis study was unable to document superior training effects over time of an adaptive WMT in children with BIF and neuropsychiatric disorders, compared with a placebo (non-adaptive) WMT. The objectively documented changes over time in the non-adaptive WMT arm suggest that these children with persistent impairments in WM may benefit from a structured learning environment that is associated with improvement of neurocognitive functioning and coping strategies. Further research is needed to examine which elements of cognitive training may be useful for which specific patients and to study long-term effects of training.

Dataset Information

Differentiating care for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning: a Delphi study on the opinions of primary and professional caregivers and scientists.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Differentiating care for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning: a Delphi study on the opinions of primary and professional caregivers and scientists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure