Search

Background Chronic disease and comorbidity patterns in people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are more complex than in the general population. However, incomplete understanding of these differences limits care providers in addressing them. Objective To compare chronic disease and comorbidity patterns in chronically ill patients with and without ID in Dutch general practice. Methods In this population-based study, a multi-regional primary care database of 2018 was combined with national population data to improve identification of adults with ID. Prevalence was calculated using Poisson regression to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the highest-impact chronic diseases (ischemic heart disease (IHD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) and comorbidities. Results Information from 18,114 people with ID and 1,093,995 people without ID was available. When considering age and sex, CVD (PR = 1.1), DM (PR = 1.6), and COPD (PR = 1.5) times more prevalent in people with than without ID. At younger age, people with ID more often had a chronic disease and multiple comorbidities. Males with ID most often had a chronic disease and multiple comorbidities. Comorbidities of circulatory nature were most common. Conclusions This study identified a younger onset of chronic illness and a higher prevalence of multiple comorbidities among people with ID in general practice than those without ID. This underlines the complexity of people with ID and chronic diseases in general practice. As this study confirmed the earlier onset of chronic diseases and comorbidities, it is recommended to acknowledge these age differences when following chronic disease guidelines.

Contains fulltext : 249089.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Primary care providers require accurate evidence on chronic disease prevalence in people with intellectual disabilities in order to apply this information into practice. This study aimed to map the broadness of literature on chronic disease prevalence in people with and without intellectual disabilities, and to explore main characteristics of these studies. METHOD: A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted, covering 2000 to February 2020, including literature that discussed chronic disease prevalence in people with and without intellectual disabilities, with similar data collection method for both groups. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included. Chronic disease prevalence varied considerably between people with and without intellectual disabilities. Studies differed in their methodologies, country and age groups that were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers should interpret results on disease prevalence among people with intellectual disabilities in light of the study characteristics. Researchers should always interpret prevalence rates in the context of methodology.