ArticleBMC health services research2026
Access to choice‑enabled healthcare providers among children and adults with intellectual disabilities in comparison with the general population (IDcare).
Article in BMC health services research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities often have complex healthcare needs and may therefore experience different patterns of healthcare utilization. This study examined the overlap between the use of public and private healthcare providers as an indicator of access to choice-enabled healthcare providers within a patient-choice-based health system.
methodsWe assessed overlap in two complementary ways: among people with at least one private healthcare contact and among those with at least one public healthcare contact in a cohort of people with intellectual disability (ID cohort) and a referent cohort from the general population (gPop cohort). The ID cohort comprised 2 813 children and 9 079 adults, whereas the gPop cohort comprised 146 048 children and 982 186 adults. Data regarding healthcare contacts in public and privately organized healthcare were collected from the Skåne Healthcare Register.
resultsAmong those with at least one contact in privately organized healthcare, both children and adults with intellectual disabilities were as likely as those in the general population to also have contacts in public primary healthcare and public somatic specialist care. However, they were more likely to have contacts in public psychiatric specialist care. Among those with at least one contact in public healthcare, children with intellectual disabilities were as likely as their age peers in the general population to also have contacts in privately organized healthcare. However, adults with intellectual disabilities were less likely than their age peers to have contacts in privately organized healthcare.
conclusionsThese findings have important implications for patient‑choice‑based health systems. They indicate that formally available provider choice does not result in similar patterns of utilisation across populations. Also, that adults with intellectual disabilities may face challenges in navigating and using privately organised providers within such systems. The prominent role of public psychiatric specialist services further highlights the continued importance of publicly provided specialist care for this group. Together, the results underscore the need for patient‑choice‑based healthcare systems to be designed and implemented in ways that support accessibility, coordination, and navigation for people with intellectual disabilities, particularly adults with complex healthcare needs and during periods of healthcare disruption.
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.