Disparities in Substance Abuse Treatment Utilization Among Women with Intellectual Disability

Health inequities among persons with disabilities: a global scoping review

Background and objective

Approximately 16% of the global population, or 1.3 billion individuals, live with disabilities, facing increased health risks. Despite international and national policies affirming the rights of persons with disabilities, healthcare disparities persist, with studies revealing higher rates of unmet medical needs, avoidable deaths, and dissatisfaction with healthcare services among this population. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of health inequities experienced by individuals with disabilities globally.

Methods

A rapid scoping review methodology was employed to systematically search and analyze quantitative evidence on health inequities. Electronic searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists. The selection criteria for articles in this study were as follows: (a) publication between 2011 and 2022, (b) written in English, (c) published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and (d) a quantitative comparison of health inequities between persons with and without disabilities.

Results

A total of 363 scholarly works were initially identified, with 51 meeting the inclusion criteria after rigorous screening. In the course of our review, our team identified three overarching themes of health inequity, encompassing (a) access to healthcare and resources, (b) morbidity, mortality, & risk factors, and (c) social determinants of health. These studies collectively reveal disparities in healthcare access, utilization, and outcomes among persons with disabilities, highlighting the urgent need for targeted interventions to address systemic barriers and promote equitable healthcare provision.

Conclusion

This review underscores the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in accessing quality healthcare and imperative for concerted efforts to advance health equity.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in People With Mild Intellectual Disability or Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Substance Use Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Study

Individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning are at increased risk to develop a substance use disorder-however, effective treatment programs adapted to this target group are scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning and substance use disorder. Take it Personal!+ is a personalized treatment based on motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy supported by an mHealth application. Data were collected in a nonconcurrent multiple baseline single-case experimental design across individuals with four phases (i.e., baseline, treatment, posttreatment, and follow-up). Twelve participants were randomly allocated to baseline lengths varying between 7 and 11 days. Substance use quantity was assessed during baseline, treatment, and posttreatment with a daily survey using a mobile application. Visual analysis was supported with statistical analysis of the daily surveys by calculating three effect size measures in 10 participants (two participants were excluded from this analysis due to a compliance rate below 50%). Secondary, substance use severity was assessed with standardized questionnaires at baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up and analyzed by calculating the Reliable Change Index. Based on visual analysis of the daily surveys, 10 out of 12 participants showed a decrease in mean substance use quantity from baseline to treatment and, if posttreatment data were available, to posttreatment. Statistical analysis showed an effect of Take it Personal!+ in terms of a decrease in daily substance use in 8 of 10 participants from baseline to treatment and if posttreatment data were available, also to posttreatment. In addition, data of the standardized questionnaires showed a decrease in substance use severity in 8 of 12 participants. These results support the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in decreasing substance use in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning.

Development of a personalised substance use disorder treatment for people with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning: An intervention mapping approach

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) in people with Mild Intellectual Disability and Borderline Intellectual Functioning (MID-BIF) is high and evidence-based treatment programs are scarce. The present study describes the development of a personalised SUD treatment for people with MID-BIF.

METHOD

The personalised SUD treatment is developed according to the steps of the Intervention Mapping approach, based on literature review, theoretical intervention methods, clinical experience and consultation with experts in the field of addiction and intellectual disability care.

RESULTS

We developed a treatment manual called Take it Personal!+. Take it Personal!+ aims to reduce substance use, is based on motivational interviewing and cognitive behavior therapy and personalised based on the client's personality profile. Furthermore, an mHealth application supports the treatment sessions.

CONCLUSION

Take it Personal!+ is the first personalised SUD treatment for individuals with MID-BIF. Future research should test the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in reducing SU.

Postpartum Health Care Among Women With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

INTRODUCTION

Postpartum health care among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities has not been well studied. This study uses administrative claims to compare postpartum outpatient visits among women with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities.

METHODS

Massachusetts All Payers Claims Database 2012-2015 was used to identify women with intellectual and developmental disabilities and a live birth during 2012-2014, matched by infant birth year to 3 women without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Women were followed up for 1 year after delivery. Analyses were conducted in 2019. Poisson regression compared guideline-concordant postpartum and other outpatient visits during the early (21-56 days after delivery) and late (57-365 days after delivery) periods. Types of nonpostpartum care visits were examined.

RESULTS

Overall, 962 and 2,886 women with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities, respectively, comprised the sample. Among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities, 23.9% had a postpartum visit in the early and 33.3% in the late postpartum periods, compared with 25.2% and 32.1% of women without intellectual and developmental disabilities who had visits in the early and late postpartum periods, respectively (p=0.49, 0.59). Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities were more likely to have other outpatient visits than those without intellectual and developmental disabilities, both in the early (63.1% vs 40.3%, adjusted RR=1.42, 95% CI=1.28, 1.58, p<0.001) and late (94.2% vs 82.3%, RR=1.11, 95% CI=1.08, 1.14, p=0.008) postpartum periods. Ancillary services, home health services, and alcohol/drug-related visits were much more common among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities are equally likely to receive guideline-concordant postpartum visits and more likely to have other outpatient visits than other women. Further research is needed to evaluate visit quality and identify best practices to support mothers with intellectual and developmental disabilities during the postpartum period.

Psychiatric care utilization among older people with intellectual disability in comparison with the general population: a register study

BACKGROUND

People with intellectual disability have been found to have higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders than the general population. However, they do not seem to have a corresponding increase in psychiatric care utilization. The aim of the present study was to investigate psychiatric care utilization among older people with intellectual disability.

METHODS

We used a cohort of people with intellectual disability, 55+ years in 2012 (n = 7936), and an equally sized age and sex matched reference cohort from the general population. Psychiatric care utilization was measured using registrations in the Swedish National Patient register during 2002-2012, where each registration corresponds to a psychiatric care occasion.

RESULTS

About 20 % of those with intellectual disability had at least one registration during the study period, compared to some 6 % in the general population sample. In the whole cohort as well as stratified by sex, people with intellectual disability were 3-4 times more likely than those in the general population sample to have had at least one registration during the study period. The effect was, however, only consistent in age groups comprising people younger than 65 years. Among people with intellectual disability, men were more likely than women to have had at least one registration, and people living in special housing (group home or service home) during the entire study period were less likely than those who only lived in special housing for parts of the study or not at all. People with intellectual disability had longer stays per inpatient registration compared with the general population sample. When stratifying on sex, the effect was found only among men, although there were no sex differences within the cohort of people with intellectual disability. Among people with intellectual disability, living in special housing during the entire study period was associated with shorter stays per inpatient registration.

CONCLUSIONS

Although people with intellectual disability had higher psychiatric care utilization than the general population during the 11 year study period, it does not correspond to the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders in this population. Future research is required to establish if the level of care utilization is appropriate among older people with intellectual disability.