ReviewThe International journal of social psychiatry2025
Outcome Measures in intellectual disability: A Review and narrative synthesis of validated instruments.
Review in The International journal of social psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigating the component structure of the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales for people with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS-LD).The International journal of social psychiatry · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcome measurement is essential to determine the effectiveness of health interventions and improve the quality of services. The interplay of social, individual, and biological factors makes this a complex process in the psychiatry of people with intellectual disability (PwID).
aimReview of outcome measures which are validated in PwID.
methodsA PRISMA-guided review was conducted, using a predefined criteria and a relevant word combination on four databases: EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Each included study was examined for relevance to intellectual disability psychiatry. The psychometric data of each tool was critically assessed. Findings were narratively synthesised.
resultsOf 1,548 articles, 35 met the inclusion criteria. Several outcome measures were identified relevant to intellectual disability psychiatry, including tools for challenging/offending behavior, specific neurodevelopmental/clinical conditions such as ADHD, epilepsy, and dementia however, psychometric properties, validity and reliability varied considerably. The tools identified were largely clinician rated, with a dearth of measures suitable for completion by patients or their family carers.
conclusionMost outcome measures used for PwID lack suitable psychometric properties including validity or reliability for use within the ID population. Of importance, those with alternative expression or are non-verbal have been excluded from the research developing and reporting on measurement instruments. There is an underserved population who risk being left behind in the era of value-based medicine and increasing use of outcome measurement when assessing the effectiveness of healthcare interventions on individual and population levels. This is the first of its kind review in this area.
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.