Mrityunjai Kumar, Indermeet Sawhney, Verity Chester, Regi Alexander, James Mitchell, Rohit Shankar
{"title":"Outcome Measures in intellectual disability: A Review and narrative synthesis of validated instruments.","authors":"Mrityunjai Kumar, Indermeet Sawhney, Verity Chester, Regi Alexander, James Mitchell, Rohit Shankar","doi":"10.1177/00207640241291517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Outcome measurement is essential to determine the effectiveness of health interventions and improve the quality of services. The interplay of social, individual, and biological factors makes this a complex process in the psychiatry of people with intellectual disability (PwID).</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Review of outcome measures which are validated in PwID.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PRISMA-guided review was conducted, using a predefined criteria and a relevant word combination on four databases: EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Each included study was examined for relevance to intellectual disability psychiatry. The psychometric data of each tool was critically assessed. Findings were narratively synthesised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,548 articles, 35 met the inclusion criteria. Several outcome measures were identified relevant to intellectual disability psychiatry, including tools for challenging/offending behavior, specific neurodevelopmental/clinical conditions such as ADHD, epilepsy, and dementia however, psychometric properties, validity and reliability varied considerably. The tools identified were largely clinician rated, with a dearth of measures suitable for completion by patients or their family carers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most outcome measures used for PwID lack suitable psychometric properties including validity or reliability for use within the ID population. Of importance, those with alternative expression or are non-verbal have been excluded from the research developing and reporting on measurement instruments. There is an underserved population who risk being left behind in the era of value-based medicine and increasing use of outcome measurement when assessing the effectiveness of healthcare interventions on individual and population levels. This is the first of its kind review in this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":14304,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Social Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"239-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Social Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640241291517","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Outcome measurement is essential to determine the effectiveness of health interventions and improve the quality of services. The interplay of social, individual, and biological factors makes this a complex process in the psychiatry of people with intellectual disability (PwID).
Aim: Review of outcome measures which are validated in PwID.
Methods: A PRISMA-guided review was conducted, using a predefined criteria and a relevant word combination on four databases: EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Each included study was examined for relevance to intellectual disability psychiatry. The psychometric data of each tool was critically assessed. Findings were narratively synthesised.
Results: Of 1,548 articles, 35 met the inclusion criteria. Several outcome measures were identified relevant to intellectual disability psychiatry, including tools for challenging/offending behavior, specific neurodevelopmental/clinical conditions such as ADHD, epilepsy, and dementia however, psychometric properties, validity and reliability varied considerably. The tools identified were largely clinician rated, with a dearth of measures suitable for completion by patients or their family carers.
Conclusion: Most outcome measures used for PwID lack suitable psychometric properties including validity or reliability for use within the ID population. Of importance, those with alternative expression or are non-verbal have been excluded from the research developing and reporting on measurement instruments. There is an underserved population who risk being left behind in the era of value-based medicine and increasing use of outcome measurement when assessing the effectiveness of healthcare interventions on individual and population levels. This is the first of its kind review in this area.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, established in 1954, is a leading publication dedicated to the field of social psychiatry. It serves as a platform for the exchange of research findings and discussions on the influence of social, environmental, and cultural factors on mental health and well-being. The journal is particularly relevant to psychiatrists and multidisciplinary professionals globally who are interested in understanding the broader context of psychiatric disorders and their impact on individuals and communities.
Social psychiatry, as a discipline, focuses on the origins and outcomes of mental health issues within a social framework, recognizing the interplay between societal structures and individual mental health. The journal draws connections with related fields such as social anthropology, cultural psychiatry, and sociology, and is influenced by the latest developments in these areas.
The journal also places a special emphasis on fast-track publication for brief communications, ensuring that timely and significant research can be disseminated quickly. Additionally, it strives to reflect its international readership by publishing state-of-the-art reviews from various regions around the world, showcasing the diverse practices and perspectives within the psychiatric disciplines. This approach not only contributes to the scientific understanding of social psychiatry but also supports the global exchange of knowledge and best practices in mental health care.