Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Brief Reports

Effects of health screening for adults with intellectual disability: a pooled analysis

Nicholas Lennox, Robert Ware, Chris Bain, Miriam Taylor Gomez and Sally-Ann Cooper
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (584): 193-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X561186
Nicholas Lennox
Roles: professor & director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Ware
Roles: senior lecturer in biostatistics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Bain
Roles: reader in epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miriam Taylor Gomez
Roles: research officer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally-Ann Cooper
Roles: professor of learning disabilities
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Health screening has been shown to have beneficial effects on health outcomes in adults with intellectual disability. However, the nature of the population, which makes it difficult to recruit, has meant past studies have been relatively small and effect estimates unstable. This study conducted a pooled analysis of two randomised trials and one cohort study, containing a total of 795 participants. Use of a simple, low-cost screening tool produced substantial increases in health-promotion and disease-prevention activity, when compared with usual care.

  • disability
  • general practitioners
  • intellectual
  • outcome assessment
  • mass screening

INTRODUCTION

People with intellectual disability have much unrecognised disease and inadequate health promotion.1–3 Barriers to providing satisfactory health care include difficulties gaining access, short consultation times, and communication difficulties.4 Beneficial effects of health screening in adults with intellectual disability have been reported;5–7 however, recruitment in this population is difficult,4,8 and individual studies have been small and effect estimates unstable. This study has addressed this by conducting a pooled analysis to assess the overall benefits of health screening for adults with intellectual disability.

METHOD

The Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies from articles published between 1980 and 2009. The terms: ‘intellectual disability’, ‘trial OR study OR control’, ‘adults’, and ‘short health screening OR health assessment’ were used. To be included, the study population had to be adults with intellectual disability, include a prospective intervention with a comparison group, and have allocation occurring at GP level or higher, to guard against carry-over effects within general practice. Two randomised trials were found,6,7 and one cohort study.5 One study investigating the effect of repeated screens was excluded due to allocation occurring within general practice.9

Original data were obtained from each included study. Post-intervention unadjusted 1-year cumulative incidence was calculated for all outcomes. A multi-level mixed-effects logistic regression was used to compute the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of achieving a health-related event in the health-screening group compared to the usual care group, with adjustment for clustering and study.

RESULTS

Three studies were identified that met the research criteria. All study participants lived in the community.

  • Study 1: Cooper et al conducted a matched cohort study in 2002–2003 in Scotland.5 Participants who received the intervention were individually matched on age, sex, and ability with adults from the neighbouring locality. The health screen used was The C21 Health Check.10 Nurses extracted data from GP notes, then interviewed and examined participants before reviewing the findings with a GP to formulate recommendations.

  • Study 2: Lennox et al conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial in 2000–2001 in Australia.6 Randomisation clusters were groups of participants who shared a residence or GP. The health screen used was the Comprehensive Health Assessment Program (CHAP). Carers completed a health history, before the adult with intellectual disability visited their GP, who reviewed the history, performed an examination, and completed an action plan.

  • Study 3: Lennox et al conducted a second trial (2 × 2 factorial) in 2004–2005.7 Randomisation clusters were groups of participants who shared a GP. Interventions were a CHAP health screen and a health diary. There was no interaction between interventions, so health outcomes among those screened were compared with those receiving usual care, ignoring whether they received a diary.

How this fits in

People with intellectual disability have much unrecognised disease, inadequate health screening, poor health, and relatively short life spans. Benefits of health screening, including increased short-term health-promotion and disease-prevention activity have been reported, but individual studies have been small. Stronger evidence for health screening could contribute significantly to promoting good health in this population.

In all studies, clinical outcomes were collected from medical records at 12 months post-intervention. In studies 2 and 3, data were extracted using the same variable definitions. Where these were compatible to those used in study 1, data were pooled. A disease diagnosis was defined as new if it had not been noted previously in the GPs' records or specialists' letters. In studies 2 and 3, data extractors were masked; in study 1 they were not.

The pooled analysis provided data on 407 adults assigned to receive health screening and 388 who received usual care. Fifty-eight per cent of participants were male, 69% had mild or moderate intellectual disability, and the median age was 37 years (range 19–79 years). Overall, a greater proportion of males than females received health screening (55% versus 47%); there was no difference in age or level of disability.

The intervention group generally received far more sensory testing and provision of health-promotion or disease-prevention activities (Table 1). Notably, there were increases in vision (odds ratio [OR] 4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.3 to 7.4) and hearing (OR 10.8; 95% CI = 3.4 to 34.3) tests performed and problems identified, as well as in key immunisations, obesity recording, and women's health screens. Typically, odds ratios varied by study, with wide and overlapping confidence intervals. For activities embedded in day-to-day practice, differences were less marked. Overall clinical activity and disease detection increased with screening, although neither notably nor significantly for most individual diseases (Table 2). No adverse effects from use of the screening tool were reported.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Number (%) of sensory deficits and health-promotion and disease-prevention actions, with pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals, and odds ratios for each included study.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Number (%) of new diseases identified, diseases investigated, and medical services used, with pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals, and odds ratios for each included study.

DISCUSSION

Summary of main findings

Participants who received health screening experienced substantial increases in clinical activities conducive to beneficial health outcomes. This occurred even though the screen was applied as a ‘one-off’ process, with no other changes in health provision. Most of these changes are just intermediate steps towards better health, and it is not possible to say adults with intellectual disability will consequently achieve better health over their life course. Nevertheless, the trend to improved healthcare practice suggests health screens are likely to provide real benefit. Repeated screens are likely to magnify benefits.9

Strengths and limitations of the study

Heterogeneity of results is probably largely due to chance: the two larger studies were conducted by the same team, the major difference being participants' accommodation setting. The study by Cooper and colleagues involved more intensive intervention, which may have led to the increases in new diagnoses for some diseases.5 There is unlikely to be any bias due to differential attrition, as follow-up rates were excellent, and randomisation and matching limit problems of confounding. These results are likely to be generalisable to a wide range of adults with intellectual disability in high-income countries, as study participants are quite representative of such populations.

Implications for clinical practice

In clinical practice, the use of a simple, low-cost, screening tool has obvious appeal, although to minimise time commitments these tools may require multidisciplinary support. It is likely that specific mental health screening would identify more neuropsychiatric and behavioural problems. Within the UK and Australia, there have been policy initiatives to promote health screening in this population through extra reimbursements to GPs. Although it is clear that health-screening tools have a significant short-term benefit in this population, examination of their long-term value is required.

Notes

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received March 18, 2010.
  • Revision received May 4, 2010.
  • Accepted July 22, 2010.
  • © British Journal of General Practice, January 2011

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Beange H,
    2. Lennox N,
    3. Parmenter T
    (1999) Health targets for people with an intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil 24(4):283–297.
    OpenUrl
    1. Emerson E,
    2. Durvasula S
    (2005) Health inequalities and people with intellectual disabilities: an introduction to the special issue. (editorial). J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 18:95–96.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Cooper S-A,
    2. Melville C,
    3. Morrison J
    (2004) People with intellectual disabilities. BMJ 329(7463):414–415.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Lennox N,
    2. Taylor M,
    3. Rey-Conde T,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Beating the barriers: recruitment of people with intellectual disability to participate in research. J Intellect Disabil Res 49(4):296–305.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Cooper S-A,
    2. Morrison J,
    3. Melville C,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Improving the health of people with intellectual disabilities: Outcomes of a health screening programme after 1 year. J Intellect Disabil Res 50(9):667–677.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Lennox N,
    2. Bain C,
    3. Rey-Conde T,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Effects of a comprehensive health assessment programme for Australian adults with intellectual disability: a cluster randomized trial. Int J Epidemiol 36(1):139–146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Lennox N,
    2. Bain C,
    3. Rey-Conde T,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Cluster randomized controlled trial of a tailored intervention to improve health for adults with intellectual disability who live in private dwellings. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 23(4):303–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Oliver PC,
    2. Piachaud J,
    3. Done J,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Difficulties in conducting a randomized controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability: implications for evidence-based practice. J Intellect Disabil Res 46(4):340–345.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Felce D,
    2. Baxter H,
    3. Lowe K,
    4. et al.
    (2008) The impact of repeated health checks for adults with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 21(6):585–596.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Glasgow University Centre for Excellence in Development and Disabilities (UCEDD)
    (2006) The C21st health check, version II (UCEDD, Glasgow).
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 61 (584)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 61, Issue 584
March 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of health screening for adults with intellectual disability: a pooled analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effects of health screening for adults with intellectual disability: a pooled analysis
Nicholas Lennox, Robert Ware, Chris Bain, Miriam Taylor Gomez, Sally-Ann Cooper
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (584): 193-196. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X561186

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Effects of health screening for adults with intellectual disability: a pooled analysis
Nicholas Lennox, Robert Ware, Chris Bain, Miriam Taylor Gomez, Sally-Ann Cooper
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (584): 193-196. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X561186
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • disability
  • general practitioners
  • intellectual
  • outcome assessment
  • mass screening

More in this TOC Section

  • Primary care consultation behaviours of long-term, adult survivors of cancer in the UK
  • Which factors are associated with higher rates of chronic kidney disease recording in primary care? A cross-sectional survey of GP practices
Show more Brief reports

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242