Ageing, osteoporosis and intellectual disability; risks differ, and diagnosis can be missed

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Eilish A. Burke, Rachael Carroll, Maire O'Dwyer, J Bernard Walsh, Philip McCallion, Mary McCarron
{"title":"Ageing, osteoporosis and intellectual disability; risks differ, and diagnosis can be missed","authors":"Eilish A. Burke,&nbsp;Rachael Carroll,&nbsp;Maire O'Dwyer,&nbsp;J Bernard Walsh,&nbsp;Philip McCallion,&nbsp;Mary McCarron","doi":"10.1111/bld.12598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>People with intellectual disability often present atypically for various health conditions, making it challenging to identify concerns, particularly when communication challenges are also considered. Additionally, they may face barriers to healthcare access, resulting in many conditions going unnoticed. Health screening inequities are also evident in this population, and osteoporosis, a silent condition often only diagnosed postfracture, requires screening; however, if this does not happen, it may result in unnecessary fracture. Therefore the aim of this study is to identify predictors of osteoporosis in older adults with intellectual disability and examine potential inequity in the diagnosis of the condition.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The study used data from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). Bone quality was measured using quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Logistic regression was performed to identify significant predictors of poor bone quality, including chronic health conditions, dietary intake, medication use and activity levels.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Out of 575 participants who completed QUS, osteoporosis prevalence was objectively measured at 41%, with a further 33.2% measured within the osteopenic range, but less than 2 in 10 had a doctor's diagnosis of osteoporosis. Reported Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry screening uptake was low at 18.2%. Three major predictor variables of osteoporosis and osteopenia were found significant: difficulty walking 100 yards, taking antiepileptic drugs medicines and taking proton pump inhibitors. The model achieved an overall classification accuracy of 70.8% for osteopenia and 72.5% for identifying osteoporosis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The study highlights the different risk factors in people with intellectual disability, the potential for missed diagnoses and the likelihood there is inadequate screening. There is an urgent need for robust risk assessment and reasonable adjustments to ensure equitable screening and targeted preventive strategies. Clinicians must consider specific concerns for this population to avoid missed diagnoses and reduce the adverse effects of osteoporosis/osteopenia, such as an increased risk of fragility fractures.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47232,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"52 3","pages":"562-576"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bld.12598","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bld.12598","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

People with intellectual disability often present atypically for various health conditions, making it challenging to identify concerns, particularly when communication challenges are also considered. Additionally, they may face barriers to healthcare access, resulting in many conditions going unnoticed. Health screening inequities are also evident in this population, and osteoporosis, a silent condition often only diagnosed postfracture, requires screening; however, if this does not happen, it may result in unnecessary fracture. Therefore the aim of this study is to identify predictors of osteoporosis in older adults with intellectual disability and examine potential inequity in the diagnosis of the condition.

Methods

The study used data from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). Bone quality was measured using quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Logistic regression was performed to identify significant predictors of poor bone quality, including chronic health conditions, dietary intake, medication use and activity levels.

Results

Out of 575 participants who completed QUS, osteoporosis prevalence was objectively measured at 41%, with a further 33.2% measured within the osteopenic range, but less than 2 in 10 had a doctor's diagnosis of osteoporosis. Reported Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry screening uptake was low at 18.2%. Three major predictor variables of osteoporosis and osteopenia were found significant: difficulty walking 100 yards, taking antiepileptic drugs medicines and taking proton pump inhibitors. The model achieved an overall classification accuracy of 70.8% for osteopenia and 72.5% for identifying osteoporosis.

Conclusion

The study highlights the different risk factors in people with intellectual disability, the potential for missed diagnoses and the likelihood there is inadequate screening. There is an urgent need for robust risk assessment and reasonable adjustments to ensure equitable screening and targeted preventive strategies. Clinicians must consider specific concerns for this population to avoid missed diagnoses and reduce the adverse effects of osteoporosis/osteopenia, such as an increased risk of fragility fractures.

老龄化、骨质疏松症和智力残疾;风险不同,诊断可能被遗漏
背景智障人士通常会因各种健康状况而表现出不典型的症状,这使得识别他们的健康问题变得非常困难,尤其是在考虑到沟通障碍的情况下。此外,他们可能在获得医疗保健服务方面面临障碍,导致许多疾病被忽视。健康筛查的不公平在这一人群中也很明显,骨质疏松症是一种无声的疾病,通常只有在骨折后才会被诊断出来,需要进行筛查;但是,如果不进行筛查,可能会导致不必要的骨折。因此,本研究旨在确定智障老年人骨质疏松症的预测因素,并检查在诊断该疾病时可能存在的不公平现象。方法本研究使用了爱尔兰老龄化纵向研究(IDS-TILDA)智障补充资料中的数据。采用定量超声波(QUS)测量骨骼质量。结果在完成定量超声波检查的 575 名参与者中,客观测量的骨质疏松症患病率为 41%,另有 33.2% 的人被测量为骨质疏松,但每 10 人中只有不到 2 人被医生诊断为骨质疏松症。据报告,双能量 X 射线吸收测定法的筛查率较低,仅为 18.2%。研究发现,骨质疏松症和骨质疏松症的三个主要预测变量具有重要意义:行走 100 码有困难、服用抗癫痫药物和服用质子泵抑制剂。该模型对骨质疏松症的总体分类准确率为 70.8%,对骨质疏松症的识别准确率为 72.5%。目前迫切需要进行强有力的风险评估和合理调整,以确保公平筛查和有针对性的预防策略。临床医生必须考虑到这一人群的特殊关切,以避免漏诊并减少骨质疏松症/骨质疏松的不良影响,如增加脆性骨折的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Learning Disabilities is an interdisciplinary international peer-reviewed journal which aims to be the leading journal in the learning disability field. It is the official Journal of the British Institute of Learning Disabilities. It encompasses contemporary debate/s and developments in research, policy and practice that are relevant to the field of learning disabilities. It publishes original refereed papers, regular special issues giving comprehensive coverage to specific subject areas, and especially commissioned keynote reviews on major topics. In addition, there are reviews of books and training materials, and a letters section. The focus of the journal is on practical issues, with current debates and research reports. Topics covered could include, but not be limited to: Current trends in residential and day-care service Inclusion, rehabilitation and quality of life Education and training Historical and inclusive pieces [particularly welcomed are those co-written with people with learning disabilities] Therapies Mental health issues Employment and occupation Recreation and leisure; Ethical issues, advocacy and rights Family and carers Health issues Adoption and fostering Causation and management of specific syndromes Staff training New technology Policy critique and impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信