ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2026
Quality Indicators for the Care of People with Intellectual Disability in Family Medicine in Slovenia: A Modified Delphi Study.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: People with intellectual disability (ID) experience poorer health outcomes and shorter life expectancy than the general population-gaps that could be mitigated by high-quality healthcare. In Slovenia, there are no specific recommendations for this population. The aim of this study was to identify and validate quality indicators (QIs) for the care of people with ID in family medicine, to serve as recommendations for this population in Slovenia. Methods: A three-round Delphi study was conducted with 15 national experts. An initial set of 44 indicators, derived from the literature, was presented, and panel members proposed eight additional indicators. In the first round, panel members rated the importance of each indicator. Based on feedback, the indicators were revised to separate importance from the implementation interval. In the second and third rounds, panel members rated importance and feasibility and selected the most appropriate time interval. Results: A total of 33 indicators were validated. These indicators cover multiple aspects of healthcare, including lifestyle factors, lifestyle advice, clinical outcomes, ongoing care, preventive medicine, and administration. Of the original 44 indicators, 28 were confirmed (64%). Of the 8 indicators proposed by panel members, 5 were validated (62.5%). A total of 9 of the original indicators (20%) and 3 of the panel-proposed indicators (37.5%) were considered important but not feasible. Conclusions: This three-round Delphi study successfully developed QIs for the care of people with ID in Slovenia. These QIs can be integrated directly into existing system structures. The study provides a set of indicators that can inform the development of a clinical checklist and serve as a practical tool for evaluating both organisational and clinical aspects of quality of care.
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.