Mental health and service use of parents with and without borderline intellectual functioning.

BACKGROUND: People with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) encounter greater social adversities than the general population and have an increased prevalence of mental illness. However, little is known about the socio-demographic characteristics and mental health of parents with BIF. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014 was conducted. Logistic regression models were fitted to compare differences in socio-demographic, mental health and service-use characteristics between parents and non-parents with and without BIF, and to investigate if the relationship between parent status and mental health outcomes was modified by BIF status, sex, and employment. RESULTS: Data from 6872 participants was analyzed; 69.1% were parents. BIF parents had higher odds of common mental disorder, severe mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harm/suicide and were more likely to see their General Practitioner (GP) and to receive mental health treatment than non-BIF parents. BIF parents did not have a higher prevalence of mental health problems than BIF non-parents. Being a parent, after adjusting for BIF status and other confounders, was associated with increased odds of having a common mental disorder, visits to see a GP and treatment for mental health. Female parents had higher odds of treatment for mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Being a parent is associated with elevated rates of common mental disorders. There is a higher burden of mental health problems and service use in people with BIF. A greater provision of specialist support services including ascertainment is indicated for this group.

Who cares? A scoping review on intellectual disability, epilepsy and social care.

PURPOSE: Nearly a quarter of people with Intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Many have seizures across their lifetime. In the UK supporting their epilepsy linked risks and needs, particularly in professional care settings and in the community, requires significant social care input. Therefore, the interface between social and health care services is important. This study aim is to identify key intersectional areas of social provision for PWID and epilepsy. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidance with suitable search terms. The search was completed in CINAHL, Embase, Psych INFO, SCIE, and Cochrane electronic databases by an information specialist. A quality assessment was completed for the included studies where appropriate. The included studies were analysed qualitatively to identify key themes and provide a narrative description of the evidence by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 748 papers screened, 94 were retrieved. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria with a range of methodologies. A thematic analysis generated four key categories for significant social care involvement i.e., staff training and education; emergency seizure management; holistic approach to care; and nocturnal monitoring and supervision. CONCLUSIONS: PwID with epilepsy have support needs that require fulfilling by various aspects of special care provision, many within the social ambit. Inspite of evidence of these needs and recurrent calls to work jointly with social care providers this has not happened. There is limited research into social care role in epilepsy management in PwID which needs addressing.