Mental health problems affect people with intellectual disabilities (ID) at rates similar to or in excess of the non-ID population. People with severe ID are likely to have persistent mental health problems. In this systematic review (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015024469), we identify and evaluate the methodological quality of available measures of mental health problems or well-being in individuals with severe or profound ID. Electronic searches of ten databases identified relevant publications. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts of retrieved records (n=41,232) and full-text articles (n=573). Data were extracted and the quality of included papers was appraised. Thirty-two papers reporting on 12 measures were included. Nine measures addressed a broad spectrum of mental health problems, and were largely observational. One physiological measure of well-being was included. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist, Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped Scale-II and Mood, Interest and Pleasure Questionnaire are reliable measures in this population. However, the psychometric properties of six other measures were only considered within a single study - indicating a lack of research replication. Few mental health measures are available for people with severe or profound ID, particularly lacking are tools measuring well-being. Assessment methods that do not rely on proxy reports should be explored further.

Active Support was more effective following complete staff training, in larger settings, at lower staff-to-resident ratios and with less experienced staff. Active Support training and outcomes were valued by staff and residents (RQ2), and staff experienced increased job satisfaction. Lower staff turnover and organizational readiness appear crucial for maintaining implementation.

Purpose: Caring for people with cancer or an intellectual disability (ID) is stressful: little is known about the combined impact of caring for cancer patients with an ID, though this is expected to be especially challenging. Method: Eighty-three nurses, working in oncology or a related field (i.e. palliative care) were recruited. Perceptions of caring for patients with and without an ID were measured, alongside potentially confounding information about participant demographic characteristics and perceived stress. Results: Participants felt less comfortable communicating with patients with an ID about their illness (F(1,82) = 59.52, p < 0.001), more reliant on a caregiver for communication (F(1,82) = 26.29, p < 0.001), and less confident that the patient's needs would be identified (F(1,82) = 42.03, p < 0.001) and met (F(1,81) = 62.90, p < 0.001). Participants also believed that caring for this patient group would induce more stress, compared with patients without an ID (F(1,81) = 31.592, p < 0.001). Previous experience working with ID patient groups appears to mitigate some perceptions about providing care to this population. Conclusions: Caring for cancer patients with an ID may intensify this, already difficult, role. Through training and knowledge exchange, oncology nurse's confidence in communication, providing appropriate care, and positivity towards this patient group may be improved

Interestingly, emergent concepts were consistent with general psycho-oncology literature; however, incidence and severity of difficulty was substantially greater in this sample. This disparity warrants further exploration, with a need for intervention research to develop effective ways of supporting health care professionals in enhancing patient-centered skills with this population. In the clinical setting, patient involvement in health care decisions (despite problems associated with comorbidity) is imperative to optimize engagement.

This is the first large-scale RCT of a co-produced training course delivered by people with ID. Findings indicated a small positive (but statistically non-significant) effect on increased staff empathy at 20 weeks, and small to moderate effects for staff reported secondary outcomes in favour of the intervention group.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present data about the experiences of adults with learning disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic across the UK. Design/methodology/approach Interviews were conducted with 609 adults with learning disabilities. Family carers and support staff of another 351 adults with learning disabilities completed a proxy online survey. The data were collected between December 2020 and February 2021 and concerned both worries/negatives and anything positive that had happened because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings Social isolation was the most commonly reported worry/negative for adults with learning disabilities, with other frequently reported worries/negatives including: changes to/loss of routine; loss of support/services; and decreased health/well-being/fitness. A large proportion of participants indicated that nothing positive had happened because of COVID-19, but some positives were reported, including: digital inclusion; more time spent with important people; improved health/well-being/fitness; and, a slower pace of life. Practical implications Future pandemic planning must ensure that adults with learning disabilities are supported to maintain social contact with the people who matter to them and to support their health and well-being (including maintaining access to essential services and activities). Some adults with learning disabilities may benefit from additional support to improve their digital confidence and access. This may in turn enable them to maintain contact with family, friends and support services/activities. Originality/value This is the largest study about the experiences of adults with learning disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. The authors primarily collected data directly from adults with learning disabilities and worked with partner organisations of people with learning disabilities throughout the study.

Objectives Family carers of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are twice as likely as other carers to experience stress and mental ill-health, but research exploring interventions is sparse. Online mindfulness may provide an accessible, cost-effective resource. The addition of guided telephone support could help to tailor an existing intervention for this population. A feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to inform the development of a definitive RCT. Methods Sixty participants were randomized to complete Be Mindful (a brief online mindfulness intervention) either with or without additional Peer Mentor support. Feasibility of recruitment, retention, intervention adherence, and acceptability of study design was examined. Preliminary analyses were undertaken on participant-reported outcomes pre- and post-intervention. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted as a process evaluation. Results Feasibility outcomes indicate that it would be possible to recruit and retain (88%) participants to a definitive RCT, and that the study design and intervention are acceptable. The addition of guided telephone support was not burdensome; indeed, it was additionally motivating. Telephone support can be delivered with high fidelity, but this is inconsistent and requires further piloting. Preliminary comparison data indicate small, but non-significant, improvements for participants receiving guided telephone support relative to those who did not over time. Conclusions It is feasible to deliver online mindfulness with additional telephone-guided support to family carers of people with ID, and this may lead to small benefits over receiving online mindfulness alone. A definitive RCT can be planned to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

ObjectiveMental health problems are more prevalent in people with than without intellectual disabilities, yet treatment options have received little attention. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions in the treatment of mental health problems in children and adults with severe and profound intellectual disabilities, given their difficulties in accessing standard mental health interventions, particularly talking therapies, and difficulties reporting drug side effects.DesignA systematic review using electronic searches of PsycINFO, PsycTESTS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index and CENTRAL was conducted to identify eligible intervention studies. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two independent reviewers.ParticipantsStudy samples included at least 70% children and/or adults with severe or profound intellectual disabilities or reported the outcomes of this subpopulation separate from participants with other levels of intellectual disabilities.InterventionsEligible intervention studies evaluated a psychological or pharmacological intervention using a control condition or pre-post design.OutcomesSymptom severity, frequency or other quantitative dimension (e.g., impact), as assessed with standardised measures of mental health problems.ResultsWe retrieved 41 232 records, reviewed 573 full-text articles and identified five studies eligible for inclusion: three studies evaluating pharmacological interventions, and two studies evaluating psychological interventions. Study designs ranged from double-blind placebo controlled crossover trials to single-case experimental reversal designs. Quality appraisals of this very limited literature base revealed good experimental control, poor reporting standards and a lack of follow-up data.ConclusionsMental ill health requires vigorous treatment, yet the current evidence base is too limited to identify with precision effective treatments specifically for children or adults with severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Clinicians therefore must work on the basis of general population evidence, while researchers work to generate more precise evidence for people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities.PROSPERO registration numberCRD 42015024469.