Access to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review

A. Cantrell, E. Croot, Maxine Johnson, Ruth Wong, D. Chambers, S. Baxter, A. Booth
{"title":"Access to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review","authors":"A. Cantrell, E. Croot, Maxine Johnson, Ruth Wong, D. Chambers, S. Baxter, A. Booth","doi":"10.3310/hsdr08050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In 2015, approximately 2.16% of adults were recorded as having intellectual disabilities. UK government policy is that adults with intellectual disabilities should access mainstream health services. However, people with intellectual disabilities experience challenges when accessing primary and community health services that can lead to inequalities and shorter life expectancy. \n \nObjectives: To map and review the evidence on access to primary and community health-care services for adults with intellectual disabilities and their carers. To identify influencing factors for gaining access \n \nto primary and community health-care services. To determine which actions, interventions or models of service provision improve entry access to these services for people with intellectual disabilities and \n \ntheir carers. Finally, to identify the gaps in evidence and provide implications for health care and recommendations for research. \n \nData sources: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Education \n \nResources Information Center (ERIC) were searched from 2002 to 2018. \n \nReview methods: The mapping review methodology included an extensive literature search, article selection and data extraction of relevant abstracts. Findings from the mapping review informed the scope of the targeted systematic review. Methodology for the targeted systematic review included an extensive literature search informed by the mapping review, article selection, data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis. \n \nResults: The mapping review included 413 studies with data extraction completed on abstracts. The targeted systematic review synthesised the evidence from 80 studies reported in 82 publications. During the review process, the team identified three key points at which people with intellectual disabilities potentially interacted with primary and community health-care services: identifying needs, accessing services and interaction during a consultation. In addition, there were a number of papers about interventions or innovations to improve access. Evidence from the studies was synthesised within the four clusters. Influencing factors were identified: staff knowledge/skills, joint working with learning disability services, service delivery model, uptake, appointment making, carer/support role, relationship with staff, time, accessible information and communication. The influencing factors were cross-cutting through the literature, with certain factors having more importance in certain clusters. \n \nLimitations: The main limitation was the weak evidence base. The studies generally had small samples, had study designs that were open to potential biases and measured only short-term outcomes. \n \nConclusions: Health checks were found to help identify health needs and improve the care of long-term conditions. Important factors for accessing health services for adults with intellectual disabilities were consistency of care and support, staff training, communication skills and time to communicate, and provision of accessible information. Health professionals need to ensure that there is joint working between different services, clear communication and accurate record-keeping. Future research questions centre on the need to develop and value creative study designs capable of addressing the complex issues identified in the findings of the review for this complex population. \n \nFunding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Background: In 2015, approximately 2.16% of adults were recorded as having intellectual disabilities. UK government policy is that adults with intellectual disabilities should access mainstream health services. However, people with intellectual disabilities experience challenges when accessing primary and community health services that can lead to inequalities and shorter life expectancy. Objectives: To map and review the evidence on access to primary and community health-care services for adults with intellectual disabilities and their carers. To identify influencing factors for gaining access to primary and community health-care services. To determine which actions, interventions or models of service provision improve entry access to these services for people with intellectual disabilities and their carers. Finally, to identify the gaps in evidence and provide implications for health care and recommendations for research. Data sources: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) were searched from 2002 to 2018. Review methods: The mapping review methodology included an extensive literature search, article selection and data extraction of relevant abstracts. Findings from the mapping review informed the scope of the targeted systematic review. Methodology for the targeted systematic review included an extensive literature search informed by the mapping review, article selection, data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis. Results: The mapping review included 413 studies with data extraction completed on abstracts. The targeted systematic review synthesised the evidence from 80 studies reported in 82 publications. During the review process, the team identified three key points at which people with intellectual disabilities potentially interacted with primary and community health-care services: identifying needs, accessing services and interaction during a consultation. In addition, there were a number of papers about interventions or innovations to improve access. Evidence from the studies was synthesised within the four clusters. Influencing factors were identified: staff knowledge/skills, joint working with learning disability services, service delivery model, uptake, appointment making, carer/support role, relationship with staff, time, accessible information and communication. The influencing factors were cross-cutting through the literature, with certain factors having more importance in certain clusters. Limitations: The main limitation was the weak evidence base. The studies generally had small samples, had study designs that were open to potential biases and measured only short-term outcomes. Conclusions: Health checks were found to help identify health needs and improve the care of long-term conditions. Important factors for accessing health services for adults with intellectual disabilities were consistency of care and support, staff training, communication skills and time to communicate, and provision of accessible information. Health professionals need to ensure that there is joint working between different services, clear communication and accurate record-keeping. Future research questions centre on the need to develop and value creative study designs capable of addressing the complex issues identified in the findings of the review for this complex population. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
16岁及以上智力残疾者获得初级和社区卫生保健服务:地图绘制和有针对性的系统审查
背景:2015年,约2.16%的成年人被记录为智力残疾。英国政府的政策是,智障成年人应获得主流医疗服务。然而,智障人士在获得初级和社区卫生服务时面临挑战,这可能导致不平等和预期寿命缩短。目标:绘制和审查智力残疾成年人及其护理人员获得初级和社区医疗服务的证据。确定获得初级和社区保健服务的影响因素。确定哪些行动、干预措施或服务提供模式可以改善智障人士及其护理人员获得这些服务的机会。最后,确定证据中的差距,并为医疗保健提供启示和研究建议。数据来源:MEDLINE、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、护理和相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)、应用社会科学索引和摘要(ASSIA)以及教育资源信息中心(ERIC)。综述方法:制图综述方法包括广泛的文献检索、文章选择和相关摘要的数据提取。测绘审查的结果为有针对性的系统审查的范围提供了依据。有针对性的系统综述的方法包括根据制图综述、文章选择、数据提取、质量评估和叙述综合进行广泛的文献检索。结果:映射综述包括413项研究,其中数据提取已在摘要中完成。这篇有针对性的系统综述综合了82篇出版物中报道的80项研究的证据。在审查过程中,该小组确定了智障人士可能与初级和社区医疗服务互动的三个关键点:确定需求、获得服务和咨询期间的互动。此外,还有一些关于干预措施或创新以改善获取机会的论文。这些研究的证据是在四个集群中综合得出的。确定了影响因素:工作人员的知识/技能、与学习障碍服务机构的联合工作、服务提供模式、接受、预约、照顾者/支持角色、与工作人员的关系、时间、无障碍信息和沟通。影响因素贯穿整个文献,某些因素在某些集群中更为重要。局限性:主要局限性是证据基础薄弱。这些研究通常样本较少,研究设计容易产生潜在偏差,只测量短期结果。结论:健康检查有助于确定健康需求并改善对长期疾病的护理。智障成年人获得保健服务的重要因素是护理和支持的一致性、工作人员培训、沟通技能和沟通时间,以及提供无障碍信息。卫生专业人员需要确保不同服务之间的联合工作、清晰的沟通和准确的记录。未来的研究问题集中在开发和重视创造性研究设计的必要性上,这些设计能够解决审查结果中针对这一复杂群体确定的复杂问题。资助:该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务与交付研究》上全文发表;第8卷第5期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信