Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020
Laxative use among older adults with intellectual disability: a cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The overlooked burden: anti-seizure medications, laxatives, and antipsychotics prescribed in primary care for people with intellectual disability.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing self-report medication data from a longitudinal study on intellectual disability and national dispensing records.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
- Laxative use in adults with intellectual disabilities: development of prescribing guidelines.BJPsych open · 2024Article
- Chronic constipation in people with intellectual disabilities in the community: cross-sectional study.BJPsych open · 2024Article
- Article
- Knowledge of Ghanaian Graduating Undergraduate Nurses About Ageing.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic constipation is a prevalent issue in older people with intellectual disabilities and may have a significant negative impact on quality of life. The use of laxatives have not been adequately studied in this population.
objectiveTo examine laxatives in relation to prevalence, pattern, dosage, reported indication and correlates.
settingOlder people with intellectual disabilities who live independently, in community group homes or residential care in Ireland.
methodData was extracted from wave 2 (2013/2014) of the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression were carried out. Laxative use was analysed using two indicators for chronic constipation, reported doctor's diagnosis of constipation and Rome III criteria.
main outcome measureLaxative use.
resultsAmong the cohort n = 677, chronic constipation was reported by 38.5% (n = 257). In total 41.5% (n = 281) reported 431 laxatives (mean ± 1.53 ± 0.74), with 74.3% (n = 209) of those with laxative use reporting chronic constipation. There were 40% (n = 113) who took 2 + laxatives, within which, 60% (n = 67) were using a combination from same laxative class. Reporting chronic constipation, living in residential care, exposure to anticholinergics and receiving soft/liquidized food were significantly associated with laxative use.
conclusionChronic constipation and laxative use were highly prevalent in this study of older adults with intellectual disabilities. The treatment of constipation appeared to be unsystematic. Intra-class laxative use was frequent. There is a need for evidence-based treatment guidelines developed especially for people with intellectual disabilities to provide effective, quality care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.