Community Living for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Unravelling the Cost Effectiveness Discourse

COVID-19 and Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Implications for Future Policy, Practice, and Research

The COVID-19 pandemic has been hard for everyone. For the estimated seven and a half million people in the United States who live with intellectual disability (Residential Information Systems Project, 2020), it has been very hard. Lives have been disrupted by lost jobs, lack of access to friends/family, and challenges finding enough staff to provide supports and needed healthcare. Studies have shown that people with IDD are at a much greater risk of getting COVID-19 and dying from it (Cuypers et al., 2020; Gleason et al., 2021; Kaye, 2021; Landes, Turk, & Ervin, 2020; Nygren & Lulinski, 2020). Without question, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) struggled as the COVID-19 pandemic began and as it has continued. Too many were isolated from friends and family for far too long. Too many were lonely and bored. Too many have not received the support they have needed during the pandemic. Far too many were denied treatment and far too many have died. As a nation we must reflect on what has happened and listen to people with IDD and their families about their experiences. This commentary reflects on the implications of COVID-19 for research, policy, and practice through the lens of people with IDD.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Group Home Culture Scale

BACKGROUND

Organizational culture in group homes for people with intellectual disabilities has been identified as influencing staff behaviour and residents' quality of life (QOL). Despite this influence, culture has been under-researched, with no published and validated instrument to measure its dimensions in group homes. The aim was to develop such a measure.

METHOD

The Group Home Culture Scale (GHCS) was developed using a theory-driven approach. Items were generated from the research literature, which were reviewed by experts and tested in cognitive interviews. Data from 343 front-line staff were used for exploratory factor analysis.

RESULTS

The content and face validity of the GHCS were found to be acceptable. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the GHCS measured seven dimensions of group home culture. Cronbach's alpha for the dimensions ranged from 0.81 to 0.92.

CONCLUSIONS

The GHCS has potential use in research to determine whether dimensions of group home culture predict the quality of staff support and residents' QOL.

Effect of deinstitutionalisation for adults with intellectual disabilities on costs: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of deinstitutionalisation for adults with intellectual disabilities.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

POPULATION

Adults (aged 18 years and over) with intellectual disabilities.

INTERVENTION

Deinstitutionalisation, that is, the move from institutional to community settings.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Studies were eligible if evaluating within any cost-consequence framework (eg, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis) or resource use typically considered to fall within the societal viewpoint (eg, cost to payers, service-users, families and informal care costs).

SEARCH

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EconLit, Embase and Scopus to September 2017 and supplemented this with grey literature searches and handsearching of the references of the eligible studies. We assessed study quality using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme suite of tools, excluding those judged to be of poor methodological quality.

RESULTS

Two studies were included; both were cohort studies from the payer perspective of people leaving long-stay National Health Service hospitals in the UK between 1984 and 1992. One study found that deinstitutionalisation reduced costs, one study found an increase in costs.

CONCLUSION

A wide-ranging literature review found limited evidence on costs associated with deinstitutionalisation for people with intellectual disabilities. From two studies included in the review, the results were conflicting. Significant gaps in the evidence base were observable, particularly with respect to priority populations in contemporary policy: older people with intellectual disabilities and serious medical illness, and younger people with very complex needs and challenging behaviours.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018077406.

A case-study of policy change in residential service provision for adult persons with intellectual disability in Ireland

In Europe, many people with intellectual disabilities continue to live in congregated settings. In 2012, Ireland formally introduced a resettlement policy with people moving to live in more personalised arrangements. This longitudinal country case-study aimed to monitor the implementation of this policy and the intra-country variations that arose using the records maintained in the National Intellectual Disability Database. Details of over 4,000 people living in congregated settings were examined in 2007 and again in 2012 and 2017. In addition, people who moved from such settings from 2007 onwards were tracked and the number of new admissions to them was estimated over the 10-year period. Overall there was nearly a 30% drop in the numbers of people in congregated settings but the reductions varied markedly across the country and by 2017 the disparity was greater than in 2007. Also by 2017 persons aged over 55 years were eight times more likely to be accommodated in congregated settings. The case-study illustrates the value of a longitudinal dataset for monitoring policy implementation across a diversity of provider organisations and administrative areas.

Accommodation and Health Costs of Deinstitutionalized People with Mental Illness Living in Residential Services in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Health costs are the main hindrances for expanding community mental health services. Exploring patient profiles and cost predictors may be useful for optimising financial resources. However, the deinstitutionalisation process may burden health budgets in terms of supporting multiple community services based on varying levels of need.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed accommodation and health service costs, quality of life and clinical and psychosocial profiles among individuals receiving mental healthcare through residential services. Specific accommodation cost predictors were also verified.

METHODS

Health costs were assessed from the perspective of a public health provider using a microcosting bottom-up approach at 20 residential services in São Paulo, Brazil. Instruments used to assess health costs and patient profiles included the Brazilian version of the Client Socio-demographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI), the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S), the Independent Living Skills Survey (ILLS), the Social Behaviour Scale (SBS) and the Quality of Life Scale (QLS).

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven residents, predominantly experiencing psychotic disorders, were interviewed. The geographical region and length of time spent living in residential services or in a psychiatric hospital predicted 66% of the variance in accommodation costs. The CGI-S and ILLS scores and years of education explained 52.7% of the variance in quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Accommodation costs were not driven by patient profile variables, while region and time spent in a hospital or in residential services were the main cost predictors. Semi-staffed homes may be an alternative for resource optimisation among individuals with mild impairment, particularly if strategies for psychosocial rehabilitation and improving quality of life are implemented.