Self-management interventions for people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review

Abstract

People with intellectual disabilities (ID) often experience difficulties managing their affairs. This study reviewed self-management interventions for people with mild to moderate ID, studying interventions' effectiveness and applied behavioural change techniques (BCTs). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, and ProQuest. Data were extracted on study, intervention, and participant characteristics, and results. Results: Of the 681 studies retrieved, 36 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies used case study designs and small samples. There were eight randomised controlled trials and one non-randomised study. Studies were mostly of moderate quality (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool). Twenty-two interventions targeted a singular practical skill for a specific context. In allinterventions, the provider applied several BCTs; in 13 studies participants were also trained to apply BCTs themselves. In all studies, improvements in self-management were reported, which mostly maintained over time (n = 20). If measured, generalisation to other settings was also found. Conclusions: Future studies should aim for a higher methodological quality and couldconsider targeting more generic self-management and a wider application of BCTs by people with ID themselves. Practice implications: The findings suggest that training can promote self-management in people with ID.

CONTACTO: A Social Networking Site for Supported-Employment Interventions for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…More relevant are the obtained results with regards to the perceived competence, as this is directly related to self-management skills. In line with the conclusions of the systematic review performed in [53], self-management improves with targeted interventions. In this case, the perceived competence to use CONTACTO can be directly translated into a positive impact on self-management skills.…”

“…According to the systematic review presented in [53], the sample sizes of similar interventions greatly vary from one study to another, from a minimum of 1 subject to a maximum of 57. In fact, more than 50% of the surveyed studies have less than five participants.…”

Commentary on “Adapted guided self-help booklets for supporting the wellbeing of people with intellectual disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic”

“…It is defined as "The actions that individuals take for themselves, on behalf of and with others in order to develop, protect, maintain and improve their health, wellbeing or wellness" (Self-care forum, 2021). Similarly, self-management encompasses the ideas of self-determination, influencing one's behaviour to reach a goal and being selfreliant (Sandjojo et al, 2020).…”

“…A more recent review of self-management interventions by Sandjojo et al (2020) included a broad range of interventions focused on activities of daily life, the behaviour change techniques applied as well as the effectiveness of the intervention were considered. The interventions focused on a range of skills or singular skills, only three of the 36 papers reviewed focused on self-determination or rights.…”

Psychosocial‐behavioural interventions for school‐aged children with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of randomised control trials

“…Although some previous systematic reviews have focused on psychosocial‐behavioural interventions for people with intellectual disabilities, they were limited to: the effectiveness of a specific intervention approach, i.e. mindfulness‐based (Singh & Hwang, 2020), psychotherapeutic (Oshodi & Turk, 2016) and cognitive behavioural (Derks et al, 2022; Felce et al, 2015); a particular aspect of daily living skills, such as self‐management (Sandjojo et al, 2020), oral hygiene (Waldron et al, 2019), weight management (Akhtar & McGibbon, 2022; Ptomey et al, 2021) and lifestyle change (Willems et al, 2018); a particular age group or severity of intellectual disability (Kok et al, 2016; Oshodi & Turk, 2016; Vereenooghe et al, 2018). To date, no review with a broad focus on psychosocial‐behavioural interventions (i.e., all non‐pharmacological/physiological interventions) involving school‐aged children with intellectual disabilities, across contexts, age groups and intellectual disability severity levels has been published.…”