ArticleThe European journal of general practice2022
Primary mental healthcare for adults with mild intellectual disabilities: a Dutch database study.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Suicide and Self-Harm in Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Pooled it
- Primary mental healthcare for adults with mild intellectual disabilities: Patients' perspectives.The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
- Primary mental health care for adults with mild intellectual disabilities: a focus group study of care professionals' perspectives.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Care needs of chronically ill patients with intellectual disabilities in Dutch general practice: patients' and providers' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Mental healthcare for adults with mild intellectual disabilities: population-based database study in Dutch mental health services.BJPsych open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) are increasingly confronted with people with both mild intellectual disability (MID) and mental health (MH) problems. Little is known about the type of MH problems for which people with MID visit their GP and the care provided.
objectivesTo identify the type and prevalence of MH disorders and MH-related complaints in people with MID in primary care and care provided, compared to people without ID.
methodsBy linking the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research's primary care databases, comprising electronic health records, with Statistic Netherlands' social services and chronic care databases, we identified 11,887 people with MID. In this four-year retrospective study, MH-related International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes and care characteristics were compared between people with MID and without ID.
resultsOf the people with MID, 48.8% had MH problems recorded vs. 30.4% of the people without ID, with significant differences in substance abuse, suicide attempts, and psychosis. Of the MID group, 80.3% were not registered by their GP with the ICPC code mental retardation. GPs provided more care to people with MID and MH problems than people without ID but with MH-problems regarding consultations (median 6.4 vs. 4.0 per year) and variety of prescribed medications (median 2.7 vs. 2.0 per year).
conclusionIn primary care, the prevalence of MH problems and care provided is high in people with MID. To improve primary mental healthcare for this group, it is essential to increase GPs' awareness and knowledge on the combination of MID and MH.
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.