Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39403989›Full record

ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2025

Comparing self-report medication data from a longitudinal study on intellectual disability and national dispensing records.

A Gorman, M Odalović, P McCallion, A Paul, É Burke, M MacLachlan, M McCarron, M C Henman, M Moran, J O'Connell and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

13 authors.

A GormanSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8524-2399
M OdalovićSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
P McCallionSchool of Social Work, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5129-6399
A PaulSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity Centre for Ageing and Intellectual Disability, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
É BurkeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity Centre for Ageing and Intellectual Disability, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
M MacLachlanAssisting Living & Learning Institute and Psychology Department, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland.
M McCarronSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity Centre for Ageing and Intellectual Disability, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
M C HenmanSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
M MoranFaculty of Learning Disability Psychiatry, College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
J O'ConnellSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
R ShankarPeninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
C RyanSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
M O'DwyerSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research Board SDAP-2021-016HRB and the Department of Health IDS-TILDA-2018-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication data are a valuable resource in epidemiological studies. As the most common data collection method of medication data is self-report, it is important to understand the accuracy of this in comparison with other methods such as dispensing records. The aim of this study was to compare the agreement between two different sources of medication data of older adults with intellectual disability (ID).

methodsSelf-report medication data were gathered from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing and linked to national pharmacy dispensing records. The kappa statistic was used to measure agreement between the two data sources for psychotropic medication.

resultsThe lowest agreement level was 'moderate' for the number of anxiolytics reported (kappa 0.56). The highest level of agreement was 'almost perfect' for the binary variable of antipsychotics (kappa 0.91). Other agreement results were 'substantial' or 'almost perfect'.

conclusionsGood agreement was found between the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing medication dataset and national dispensing records. Self-report medication data appear to be a valid method of data collection in psychotropic medication use in adults with ID.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilitySelf ReportAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIrelandLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPsychotropic DrugsPsychotropic Drugsagreementintellectual disabilitiesintellectual disabilitypharmacoepidemiologypsychotropic medicationpsychotropics

Identifiers

PMID39403989
PMCPMC11621587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.