Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40611860›Full record

ArticleSage open aging

Progressive Needs of Patients with Intellectual Disabilities in Aging: Exploratory Study by Health Professionals in Italian Residential-Care Organization.

Dina Di Giacomo, Maria Antonietta Pompili, Federica Di Lucia, Alessandra Martelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sage open aging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Dina Di GiacomoUniversity of L'Aquila, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8189-2052
Maria Antonietta PompiliPiccola Opera Charithas, Teramo, Italy.
Federica Di LuciaPiccola Opera Charithas, Teramo, Italy.
Alessandra MartelliUniversity of L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The research project aimed to examine the views and perspectives of community workers for older people with intellectual disabilities (≥50 years), with the aim of exploring and documenting the most important support needs in all Quality domains of life of their old patients with intellectual disabilities. Methods: N.113 participants are working as health professionals in the residential-care organizations for people with intellectual disabilities in Italy. A survey online on the QoL model was developed exploring following domains: Personal development, Self-determination, Interpersonal relationships, Social inclusion, Rights, Emotional well-being, Physical well-being, Material well-being and Existential well-being. Results: According to the participants, older people with intellectual disabilities experience support needs in all 8 examined QoL domains: all of them seemed high relevance. The support needs within the domains of emotional well-being, physical well-being, were rated as being of the greatest importance for this population, whereas those within the domains of personal develoment, existensial wellbeing, social inclusion were rated as being least important from almost invovled pofessionals. Conclusions: The increasing of longevity and applying lifestile medicine, the clinical and social community is detecting the need to support better and funciotnally that patients; the other part, the managing of people with intellectual disabilities experience in dedicated community could be impacted negatively to the age-related difficulties as well leading to augmentation and changes in their daily support needs.

Indexed as

health professionalsolder patients wih intectual disabilitiespsychological needsquality of liferesidential.care organizations

Identifiers

PMID40611860
PMCPMC12220904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.