Search

Objective: Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated that people with disability have substantial inequalities in mental health compared to people without disability. However, it is not known if these inequalities have changed over time. This study compared the mental health of people with and without disability annually from 2003 to 2020 to investigate time trends in disability-related mental health inequalities. Methods: We use annual data (2003–2020) of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Mental health was measured using the five-item Mental Health Inventory. For each wave, we calculated population-weighted age-standardised estimates of mean Mental Health Inventory scores for people with and without disability and calculated the mean difference in Mental Health Inventory score to determine inequalities. Analyses were stratified by age, sex and disability group (sensory or speech, physical, intellectual or learning, psychological, brain injury or stroke, other). Results: From 2003 to 2020, people with disability had worse mental health than people without disability, with average Mental Health Inventory scores 9.8 to 12.1 points lower than for people without disability. For both people with and without disability, Mental Health Inventory scores decreased, indicating worsening mental health, reaching the lowest point for both groups in 2020. For some subpopulations, including young females and people with intellectual disability, brain injury or stroke, mental health inequalities worsened. Conclusion: This paper confirms that people with disability experience worse mental health than people without disability. We add to previous findings by demonstrating that disability-related inequalities in mental health have been sustained for a long period and are worsening in some subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children and adolescents with intellectual disability are at risk of developing psychiatric symptoms and disorders; yet, the estimates reported in the literature have been inconsistent, presenting a potential barrier for service planning and delivery. Sources of variability could arise from differences in measurement instruments as well as subgroup membership by severity of intellectual disability, gender and age. This systematic review aimed to address these gaps. Method: MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to 2018 and selected studies were reviewed. Studies were included if they reported point prevalence estimates of mental health symptomology or diagnoses in a general population of 6- to 21-year-old individuals with intellectual disability. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist was applied to eligible papers to appraise their scientific strength. Pooled prevalence for mental health symptomology was determined using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: A total of 19 studies were included, including 6151 children and adolescents. The pooled prevalence estimate captured by the Developmental Behaviour Checklist was 38% (95% confidence interval = [31, 46]), contrasting with 49% (95% confidence interval = [46, 51]) captured by the Child Behaviour Checklist; both rates were higher than a non-intellectual disability population. Severity of intellectual disability did not significantly influence the Developmental Behaviour Checklist risks. Insufficient data were available to conduct statistical analyses on the effects of age, gender and socioeconomic status. Of diagnosed psychiatric disorders, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), conduct disorder (3–21%) and anxiety disorders (7–34%) were the most prevalent conditions. Conclusion: This review consists of the largest sample hitherto evaluated. In the intellectual disability population, mental health comorbidities could be better detected by a symptom phenotype than a psychiatric diagnostic phenotype. Crucially, future research needs to address the effect of measurement validity in the intellectual disability population. Estimated prevalence rates were high compared to the general population, indicating the importance of systematic screening, case detection and appropriate management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]