ReviewJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
Clinical Models of Care for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities in Forensic Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2026. 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.
- Clinical Models of Care for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities in Forensic Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (ID) and forensic histories face significant health inequalities, including reduced quality of life and prolonged stays in mental health hospitals. This is a global health issue, and there is an urgent need for evidence-based specific forensic interventions, models of care and service models to allow for effective discharge in the community, improve long-term outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.
methodThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews. We have adapted Morrisey's framework to report outcomes of clinical models of care to include (i) effectiveness of treatment; (ii) patient safety; (iii) patient and family experience of care; and (iv) staff outcomes, skills and attributes.
resultsFifty-six studies were included in this review, reporting on 49 interventions, models of care and service models (referred to as 'models'). Four forensic models of care were identified as best practice: the Discharge Pathway Protocol, the Care Pathway-Based Approach, the Psychological Treatment Pathway and the Forensic Intellectual Disability Secure Services (FIDSS) Model of Care. The first three have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing length of stay, facilitating timely discharges and improving patient outcomes for individuals with ID, while the FIDSS Model of Care represents a holistic and culturally sensitive approach emphasising person-centred care, rehabilitation and quality of life. The findings underscore the need for larger studies to explore predictors of successful discharge and long-term outcomes.
conclusionsThis is the first review to bring together 'clinical effectiveness' studies and those reporting on patient and family experience, as well as staff's needs, attributes and experiences. Policymakers and practitioners should consider the models identified here as frameworks for developing effective, person-centred care pathways, ensuring appropriate staff training and support, meaningful communication and work with the patient and their family/peers/support network and integrating community services to address the complex needs of this vulnerable population.
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.