Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) and gender diverse adults with intellectual disability experience exclusion within disability services.Objective: This review explores the experiences of social inclusion/exclusion of this cohort in the context of disability services. Search Method: A systematic search was conducted of peer-reviewed research published between January 2014 and April 2019. Five databases returned 66 articles plus three from hand searches. Appraisal and Synthesis: Nine articles were included in this review. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the quality of the research. NVivo 12 was used as a tool to organise the articles. Results: Marginalisation of LGBTQ adults with intellectual disability in western societies is mirrored in disability organisations. There remains a dearth of research into experiences of transgender people with intellectual disability who use disability services. Conclusions: Research into interventions that support the inclusion of this cohort in disability support services is needed.

Background Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research positively affects the relevance, quality, and impact of research. Around 11% of studies published in leading medical journals demonstrate PPIE. The extent of PPIE in nursing research has not been previously studied. Methods A descriptive study of PPIE in clinical trials published in general nursing science journals between 1st January and 31st August 2021. Data were extracted from included studies against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) short form reporting checklist. Results We searched 27 journals and identified 89 randomised controlled clinical trials. There was no statement or evidence of PPIE in any of the included trials. Conclusion Nurse researchers need to ensure that they purposefully involve patients in their research and report this in papers describing study findings.

No abstract

In every Australian jurisdiction, legislation permits mental health service providers and/or mental health tribunals to force people with mental illness to engage in treatment, under Community Treatment Orders (CTOs). Despite considerable efforts made by every Australian state and territory to meet human rights obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2008; Maylea & Hirsch, 2017), Australia has rates of CTO usage that are very high by world standards (Light, 2019). Even within Australia, rates of CTO usage vary considerably between and within jurisdictions in spite of the legislation being very similar (Light, 2019; Adult mental health quarterly KPI report, 2019). This occurs in the context of mixed evidence about the efficacy of CTOs and a lack of clear understanding of their purpose (Segal et al., 2017; Kisely et al., 2017). The use of CTOs remains one of the most contentious issues in mental health service delivery. Not only is their efficacy unresolved, they also raise serious ethical and human rights concerns. The current debates, and attempts at reform, must be informed by valid and reliable data. This brief commentary will make the case for a research agenda that addresses the minimal research that has been undertaken to address the variations of CTO use across Australian jurisdictions.