Improved health care, including anticipatory care such as health checks, and initiatives addressing most relevant lifestyle behaviours and health risks are indicated.

Few adults with autism have intellectual disability; however, autism is more prevalent in this population. Autism measures may miss more women with autism.

Background Obesity is a major public health concern internationally and this study aimed to measure the prevalence of obesity in adults with intellectual disabilities in comparison with general population data, and examine the factors associated with obesity. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of all adults with intellectual disabilities, in a defined geographical area, in the context of a primary care health screening programme. A total of 945 adults with intellectual disabilities were involved, all of whom were living in the community. Body mass index (BMI), demographic characteristics, socio-economic deprivation, level of intellectual disabilities and various health parameters were measured. Results Overall, 39.3% of women and 27.8% of men were obese, compared with 25.1% of women and 22.7% of men in the comparison general population. The mean BMI of women with intellectual disabilities (28.8, range 12.3-59, SD 7.8) was significantly greater than the mean BMI of men with intellectual disabilities (26.7, range 12.6-49, SD 5.9), and women were more likely to be obese than men with intellectual disabilities (v 2 = 29.6, P < 0.001). Regression analyses showed that for both women and men, the risk of overweight and obesity reduced as the severity of intellectual disabilities increased, and Down syndrome was associated with an increased risk of overweight and obesity. Conclusions There is a need to carry out research to further our understanding of the reasons behind the increased prevalence of obesity in adults with intellectual disabilities. Effective weight management interventions and accessible clinical services are required to reduce the health inequalities experienced by adults with intellectual disabilities.

BackgroundThere are no previous whole-country studies on mental health and relationships with general health in intellectual disability populations; study results vary.AimsTo determine the prevalence of mental health conditions and relationships with general health in a total population with and without intellectual disabilities.MethodNinety-four per cent completed Scotland’s Census 2011. Data on intellectual disabilities, mental health and general health were extracted, and the association between them was investigated.ResultsA total of 26 349/5 295 403 (0.5%) had intellectual disabilities. In total, 12.8% children, 23.4% adults and 27.2% older adults had mental health conditions compared with 0.3, 5.3 and 4.5% of the general population. Intellectual disabilities predicted mental health conditions; odds ratio (OR)=7.1 (95% CI 6.8–7.3). General health was substantially poorer and associated with mental health conditions; fair health OR=1.8 (95% CI 1.7–1.9), bad/very bad health OR=4.2 (95% CI 3.9–4.6).ConclusionsThese large-scale, whole-country study findings are important, given the previously stated lack of confidence in comparative prevalence results, and the need to plan services accordingly.Declaration of interestNone.Copyright and usage© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

SummaryBackgroundPsychological therapies are first-line interventions for depression, but existing provision is not accessible for many adults with intellectual disabilities. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervention (BeatIt) for people with intellectual disabilities and depression. BeatIt was compared with a guided self-help intervention (StepUp).MethodsWe did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation. Participants aged 18 years or older, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and clinically significant depression were recruited from health and social care services in the UK. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) score at 12 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISCRTN, number ISRCTN09753005.FindingsBetween Aug 8, 2013, and Sept 1, 2015, 161 participants were randomly assigned (84 to BeatIt; 77 to StepUp); 141 (88%) participants completed the trial. No group differences were found in the effects of BeatIt and StepUp based on GDS-LD scores at 12 months (12·03 [SD 7·99] GDS-LD points for BeatIt vs 12·43 [SD 7·64] GDS-LD points for StepUp; mean difference 0·26 GDS-LD points [95% CI −2·18 to 2·70]; p=0·833). Within-group improvements in GDS-LD scores occurred in both groups at 12 months (BeatIt, mean change −4·2 GDS-LD points [95% CI −6·0 to −2·4], p<0·0001; StepUp, mean change −4·5 GDS-LD points [–6·2 to −2·7], p<0·0001), with large effect sizes (BeatIt, 0·590 [95% CI 0·337–0·844]; StepUp, 0·627 [0·380–0·873]). BeatIt was not cost-effective when compared with StepUp, although the economic analyses indicated substantial uncertainty. Treatment costs were only approximately 3·6–6·8% of participants' total support costs. No treatment-related or trial-related adverse events were reported.InterpretationThis study is, to our knowledge, the first large randomised controlled trial assessing individual psychological interventions for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. These findings show that there is no evidence that BeatIt is more effective than StepUp; both are active and potentially effective interventions.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Disparities in the health status and care experienced by people with intellectual disabilities are increasingly being recognized. This special report presents the results of an international expert consensus workshop held under the auspices of the Health Issues Special Interest Research Group of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities. The workshop's presentations were designed to identify domains of health disparity and identify examples of evidence‐based or good practice and from them define statements and recommendations that would form the basis of an agenda for change. The report recognizes the breadth of domains that impact on disparity in health among people with intellectual disabilities by highlighting the importance of classification and the direct recognition of the increased morbidity and reduced life expectancy that these people experience. The report also considers population‐based causes of disparity relating to social circumstances and inequalities in the provision of health and social services. Individual predispositions attributable to sex or genetic factors and potential solutions actualized through self‐determination are discussed.

Background: In the UK, general practitioners/family physicians receive pay for perfor-

Background There have been several past reports that adults with intellectual disabilities experience poor oral health (tooth loss, periodontal health and untreated dental caries). Loss of a functional dentition has serious consequences, including problems with chewing, swallowing, nutrition, speech, temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis and pain and systemic health conditions. Poor oral health is largely preventable through proactive oral care support. In recent years, social care provision for adults has changed, with deinstitutionalisation and home‐based personalised care now being the typical provision in high income countries. Hence, oral health inequalities might be reducing. However, there is limited recent evidence‐synthesis on the topic. We aimed to address this. Method PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018089880. We conducted a preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses systematic review of publications since 2008. Four databases were searched with a clear search strategy, strict inclusion criteria for selection of papers, double scoring (two raters), systematic data extraction and quality appraisal of included papers. Results A total of 33/3958 retrieved articles were included, of which 14 were drawn from dental service users and 10 from Special Olympic athletes, therefore not necessarily being representative of the wider population with intellectual disabilities. Despite this limitation, adults with intellectual disabilities were still shown to experience poor oral health. High levels of poor oral hygiene and gingivitis were found, with many also affected by periodontitis and untreated dental decay. There is clear unmet need relating to both periodontal (gum) and tooth health, leading to tooth loss. Conclusions Despite reports in the past of poor oral health amongst adults with intellectual disabilities, and despite it being preventable, there remains a high burden of poor oral health. This highlights the need to raise awareness, and for polices on effective daily oral care, and appropriate service provision. The importance of oral health and its possible negative sequelae needs to be elevated amongst carers and professionals.