Dataset Information

The impact of COVID-19 on the social inclusion of older adults with an intellectual disability during the first wave of the pandemic in Ireland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Social restrictions and service closures from COVID-19 have negatively impacted social inclusion and well-being for some people with intellectual disabilities (IDs).

Methods

The fourth wave of a national longitudinal study on ageing in people with ID in Ireland was interrupted during the COVID-19 outbreak. Social inclusion data for pre-existing participants interviewed before COVID-19 (n = 444) were compared with data for pre-existing participants interviewed during/after lockdown (n = 62).

Results

More people interviewed after lockdown reported frequent family contact. Significantly greater numbers in the post-lockdown group reported access to and use of technology than the pre-lockdown group. Technology use was higher among those living in grouped residences supported by services compared with individuals living independently or with family.

Conclusions

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland, many older adults with ID stayed connected with family and reported rates of contact higher than were reported by others before COVID-19. This connection may have been supported by a significant increase in technology use during the pandemic. However, uneven use of technology may disadvantage some including individuals living with family or independently. Given that COVID-19 restrictions are likely to continue to restrict social opportunities, increased digital support may assist more people with ID to use technology to maintain their social connections.

SUBMITTER: McCausland D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447302 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of this review is to answer the following question: Does assistive technology contribute to social inclusion for people with intellectual disability? Previous research on assistive technology has focused on socioeconomic impacts such as education, employment and access to healthcare by people with intellectual disability. There is a need to consolidate evidence on the interaction between intellectual disability, assistive technology, community living and social inclusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The review will consider studies from all settings: geographical, socioeconomic and care (institutional and community care), published in English. Studies reported in other languages with abstracts in English will be included if they can be translated using Google Translate, otherwise such studies will be included in the appendix. The review will include both qualitative and quantitative studies. The intervention in this review refers to the use of assistive technology to promote community participation or interpersonal relationships (social inclusion) for people with intellectual disability. The outcomes will be behavioural and social benefits of using assistive technology by people with intellectual disability. Enhanced interpersonal relationships and community participation by people with intellectual disability. Data analysis will be in two phases. The first phase will involve analysis of individual study designs separately. The second phase will be narrative/thematic synthesis of all study groups. ETHICS:The review will not create any ethical or safety concerns. DISSEMINATION:At least one peer-reviewed article in a leading journal such as the BMJ is planned. The findings will also be disseminated through a seminar session involving internal audience at Trinity College Dublin and within the Assistive Technologies for people with Intellectual Disability and Autism research programme. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017065447; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (PWID) are at six times higher risk of death due to COVID-19. To mitigate harm, as a high-risk group, significant social changes were imposed on PWID in the UK. Alongside these changes, the uncertainty of the pandemic influence, caused PWID and their carers to encounter significant stress. The evidence of the pandemic's psycho-social impact on PWID originates mainly from cross-sectional surveys conducted with professionals and carers. There is little research on the longitudinal psycho-social impact of the pandemic from PWID themselves.AimsTo examine the long-term psycho-social impact of the pandemic on PWID.MethodsA cross-sectional survey, following STROBE guidance, of 17 Likert scale statements (12 to PWID and 5 to their carers) to ascertain the pandemic's psychosocial impact was conducted. Every other PWID open to a specialist Intellectual Disability service serving half a UK County (pop:500,000) was selected. The same survey was re-run with the same cohort a year later. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square and unpaired-t tests were used to compare responses. Significance is taken at p < .05. Comments were analysed using Clarke and Braun's approach.ResultsOf 250 PWID contacted, 100 (40%) responded in 2020 and 127 (51%) in 2021. 69% (2020) and 58% (2021) reported seeking medical support. Carers, (88%, 2020 and 90%, 2021) noticed emotional changes in PWID they cared for. 13% (2020) and 20% (2021) of PWID had their regular psychotropics increased. 21% (2020) and 24% (2021) had their pro re nata (PRN) medication adjusted. PWID or carers demonstrated no statistically significant variation in responses between themselves from 2020 to 2021. PWID were more likely to report being upset/distressed compared to their carers' perceptions of them in both years (p < .001). Four themes were identified.ConclusionThis longitudinal study highlights the diverse psycho-social impact of the pandemic on PWID in the UK. The Pandemic's psycho-social impact has been significantly underestimated.

Project description:ObjectiveThis umbrella systematic review examined the effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers of interventions for social, community and civic participation for adults on the autism spectrum, or with intellectual or psychosocial disability.Data sourcesEight databases were searched to identify eligible reviews defined by the: Sample (≥50% adults on the autism spectrum or with intellectual or psychosocial disability), Phenomena of Interest (interventions in community settings that aimed to improve social, community or civic participation, or capacity to participate), Design (any), Evaluation (any method that evaluated impacts on participation or capacity to participate), and Research type (reviews as journal articles, dissertations or in grey literature, in English, published 2010-2020).Review methodsRapid review methods were used. One researcher screened 27,890 records and 788 potentially eligible full texts. A second reviewer independently screened 20% of records, and ambiguous full text publications. Study quality was extracted, and review quality was assessed with the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Data from 522 studies in 57 eligible systematic reviews were extracted for narrative synthesis. The Corrected Covered Area (CCA) was calculated to indicate overlap between reviews.ResultsThere was a pooled sample of 28,154 study participants, predominantly from studies in North America, the UK and Europe. There was very low overlap between reviews (CCA = 0.3%). Reviews were predominantly low quality: 77.2% of reviews met <50% of AMSTAR criteria. Most studies were low (45.4%) or moderate (38.3%) quality. Three broad intervention categories improved participation, inclusion and belonging outcomes: (1) interventions to help people identify and connect with participation opportunities (e.g., person centred planning); (2) participation opportunities or activities (e.g., joining a community group, sports or outdoor activities, or arts-based activities); and (3) supports to build skills and capacity to participate socially and in the community.ConclusionsThe evidence highlighted that improved social and community participation requires purposeful strategies that identify meaningful participation preferences (e.g., where, when, how, and with whom) and provide support to build capacity or enable ongoing participation. Community capacity building, peer support and advocacy may also be needed to make the community more accessible, and to enable people to exercise genuine choice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected people with intellectual disability disproportionately. Existing data does not provide enough information to understand factors associated with increased deaths in those with intellectual disability. Establishing who is at high risk is important in developing prevention strategies, given risk factors or comorbidities in people with intellectual disability may be different to those in the general population. AIMS:To identify comorbidities, demographic and clinical factors of those individuals with intellectual disability who have died from COVID-19. METHOD:An observational descriptive case series looking at deaths because of COVID-19 in people with intellectual disability was conducted. Along with established risk factors observed in the general population, possible specific risk factors and comorbidities in people with intellectual disability for deaths related to COVID-19 were examined. Comparisons between mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability subcohorts were undertaken. RESULTS:Data on 66 deaths in individuals with intellectual disability were analysed. This group was younger (mean age 64 years) compared with the age of death in the general population because of COVID-19. High rates of moderate-to-profound intellectual disability (n = 43), epilepsy (n = 29), mental illness (n = 29), dysphagia (n = 23), Down syndrome (n = 20) and dementia (n = 15) were observed. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study exploring associations between possible risk factors and comorbidities found in COVID-19 deaths in people with intellectual disability. Our data provides insight into possible factors for deaths in people with intellectual disability. Some of the factors varied between the mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability groups. This highlights an urgent need for further systemic inquiry and study of the possible cumulative impact of these factors and comorbidities given the possibility of COVID-19 resurgence.