Search

Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities requires governments around the globe to raise awareness on issues of disability in their societies, combatting stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices. Little comparative data is available on lay people's social representations of intellectual disability and associated stigma, which could inform actions in line with the convention. The present study compared intellectual disability literacy and stigma among adults in the general population in the UK, Austria and Germany (N = 1046), and examined the effects of providing an intellectual disability label on these outcomes. Although participants came from highly developed European countries and prior contact with people with intellectual disabilities was common, the findings pointed to some striking differences between countries. Participants in Austria and Germany were much less likely than those in the UK to identify symptoms of a possible intellectual disability in an unlabelled vignette. They were also much more hostile towards social contact, a difference that was maintained when participants were informed of the intellectual disability label. Labelling showed controversial effects on stigma, both in its effects on social distance and on beliefs about suitable causes and interventions. Overall, the social acceptance of people with intellectual disabilities appears to be much less advanced in Austria and Germany than in the UK, and awareness of intellectual disability much lower, indicating a need for action at societal level.

Aim This work describes an extensive systematic literature review on assessment instruments for dementia in persons with intellectual disability (ID). Existing instruments for the detection of dementia in persons with ID were collected and described systematically. This allows a direct and quick overview of available tools. Additionally, it contributes to the availability and usability of information about these instruments, thus enhancing further developments in this field. Methods A systematic literature search in five databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted. In order to include gray literature an invisible college approach was used. Relevant studies were identified and selected using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the selection process all instruments were coded and classified. It was determined which concepts they assess, whether they were especially developed or adapted for persons with ID, and whether they were designed to assess dementia. The selection of relevant papers, as well as the coding of instruments was done independently by two researchers. Results In total, 97 records met the search criteria. Out of these, 114 different instruments were extracted. There were 79 instruments to be completed by the person with ID, and 35 informant-based instruments. Additionally, four test batteries were found. Some of these instruments were neither designed for the assessment of dementia, nor for persons with ID. Conclusions There are a variety of different tools used for the assessment of dementia in ID. Nevertheless, an agreed-upon approach or instrument is missing. Establishing this would improve the quality of assessment in clinical practice, and benefit research. Data collected would become comparable and combinable, and allow research to have more informative value.