BackgroundPersons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning are often studied as a single group with similar characteristics. However, there are indications that differences exist within this population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify classes of persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning and to examine whether these classes are related to individual and/or environmental characteristics.MethodsLatent class analysis was performed using file data of 250 eligible participants with a mean age of 26.1 (SD 13.8, range 3–70) years.ResultsFive distinct classes of persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning were found. These classes significantly differed in individual and environmental characteristics. For example, persons with a mild intellectual disability experienced fewer problems than those with borderline intellectual disability.ConclusionsThe identification of five classes implies that a differentiated approach is required towards persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1426-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background There has been substantial increase in the number of people with mild intellectual disability (MID) or borderline intellectual functioning referred to long-term care. Insight into the specific characteristics and needs of these people is essential to provide appropriate support and gain insight into the increase in referrals. Method This retrospective descriptive study was based on a structured case analysis of a sample of 250 participants.Results Mental health problems and exposure to social and familial disadvantages were common. Care provided before referral tended to be suboptimal. Individuals with borderline intellectual functioning had more personal and contextual problems than people with MID. Conclusion People with MID or borderline intellectual functioning are confronted with a wide range of complex problems; even after years of professional support they may still need intensive support. Differences in the characteristics and contexts between individuals with MID or borderline intellectual functioning require further exploration.

The support programs for a heterogeneous population of persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning seem to be suboptimal, indicating that more differentiation is required in the services offered to these individuals.

Background: The demand for support for persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning is growing rapidly. These persons often encounter individual and familial limitations that influence their human functioning, and often have difficulty coping with the demands of modern society. Although in the areas of policy, research and practice, people with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning are generally approached as one group, important differences between them have been reported. Current support seems to be both suboptimal and insufficiently differentiated. Methods: In this Delphi study we aimed to explore the need for appropriate and differentiated support for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning. The study was based on five unique profiles of persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning that are associated with individual and environmental variables. The opinions of expert primary caregivers, professional caregivers and scientists were analysed for potentially appropriate types of support for each of the five profiles. Results: A total of 174 statements, divided over the five profiles, were presented to the participants. For 74 statements, consensus was reached between the expert groups. For each profile, these consensual statements represented specific items (e.g. concrete personal goals) and non-specific items (e.g. the attitude towards persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning, and the coordination of health care) related to the support needs. Conclusion: This Delphi-based study generated consensual opinions contributing to a more differentiated system of support for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning. Although these findings need additional investigation, they address actions that might enhance the support programmes for these individuals into more personalized support.