ArticleBMC public health2026
COVID-19 among people with intellectual disability in comparison to the general population: diagnoses, hospitalizations, deaths, and vaccinations (IDcare).
Article in BMC public health, 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
Abstract
backgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (ID) were identified as one of the vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have investigated a comprehensive set of COVID-19-related outcomes. The aim of this study is therefore to describe COVID-19-related diagnoses, hospitalizations, deaths, and vaccinations among people with ID compared to the general population.
methodsThis register-based cohort study included all people living in Skåne, Sweden, on January 1st, 2014. People with ID and still alive January 1st, 2020, constituted the ID cohort (n = 14 046). Those remaining after excluding people in the same family/household comprised the general population cohort (gPop, n = 1 157 138). Data regarding outcomes were collected from Swedish national and regional registers for 2020 and 2021.
resultsPeople in the ID cohort had higher risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19 but were less likely than those in the gPop cohort to have the diagnosis confirmed by laboratory test. Adults and older people in the ID cohort had higher COVID-19 related healthcare utilization in terms of physical primary care visits in 2020 and hospitalizations in both 2020 and 2021, with some sex and age differences within the ID cohort. Among those with at least one physical primary care contact, adults and older women in the ID cohort had fewer contacts in 2020 compared to their peers in the gPop cohort. Where the number of observations allowed for analyses, people in the ID cohort had higher risk of death from COVID-19 than those in the gPop cohort.
conclusionsPeople with ID had similar healthcare utilization as the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the same or higher levels of COVID-related healthcare, and similar vaccination rates. However, people with ID with healthcare contacts had fewer contacts and bed days and higher mortality. Overall, the Swedish COVID-19 strategy regarding vaccination and healthcare prioritization for people with ID seems to have worked as intended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881375What 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.