Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34164584›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2021

Prevalence estimation of intellectual disability using national administrative and household survey data: The importance of survey question specificity.

O McBride, P Heslop, G Glover, T Taggart, L Hanna-Trainor, M Shevlin, J Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of population data science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Challenges in Providing Parenting Support for Parents With Intellectual Disabilities in Japan.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

O McBrideSchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
P HeslopSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
G GloverLearning Disability Observatory, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
T TaggartSchool of Nursing, Ulster University, Derry, Northern Ireland.
L Hanna-TrainorSchool of Nursing, Ulster University, Derry, Northern Ireland.
M ShevlinSchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
J MurphySchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariability in prevalence estimation of intellectual disability has been attributed to heterogeneity in study settings, methodologies, and intellectual disability case definitions. Among studies based on national household survey data specifically, variability in prevalence estimation has partly been attributed to the level of specificity of the survey questions employed to determine the presence of intellectual disability. SPECIFIC AIMS &

methodUsing standardised difference scoring, and 'intellectual disability' survey data from the 2007 Northern Ireland Survey on Activity Limitation and Disability (NISALD) (N=23,689) and the 2011 Northern Ireland Census (N=1,770,217) the following study had two aims. First, we aimed to demonstrate the effects of survey question specificity on intellectual disability prevalence estimation. Second, we aimed to produce reliable estimates of the geographic variation of intellectual disability within private households in Northern Ireland while also assessing the socio-demographic, health-related and disability characteristics of this population.

findingsPrevalence estimates generated using the more crudely classified intellectual disability Census data indicated a prevalence of 2% for the overall population, 3.8% for children aged between 0 and 15 years, and 1.5% for citizens aged 16 years or older. Intellectual disability prevalence estimates generated using the more explicitly defined 2007 NISALD data indicated a population prevalence of 0.5% for the overall population, 1.3% for children aged between 0 and 15 years, and 0.3% for citizens aged 16 years or older. The NISALD estimates were consistent with most recent international meta-analysis prevalence estimates. According to the NISALD data, the majority of those with an intellectual disability were male, lived outside Belfast, and experienced severe intellectual disability, with multiple comorbid health conditions. DISCUSSION: The current findings highlight the importance of survey question specificity in the estimation of intellectual disability prevalence and provide reliable prevalence estimates of intellectual disability in Northern Ireland. The findings also demonstrate the utility of administrative data for detecting and understanding intellectual disability, and inform recommendations on how to maximise use of future intellectual disability Census data.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityPersons with DisabilitiesAdolescentCensusesChildChild, PreschoolFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePrevalenceadministrative datacensus datahousehold probability surveyintellectual disabilitynorthern ireland

Identifiers

PMID34164584
PMCPMC8188522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.