A systematic review and narrative synthesis of inclusive health and social care research with people with intellectual disabilities: How are co-researchers involved and what are their experiences?

BACKGROUND: Using inclusive research methods with people with intellectual disabilities is increasingly common. A recent consensus statement identified key elements when conducting and reporting inclusive research with people with intellectual disabilities. This review identifies the range of health and social care research topics using inclusive research methodologies, systematically appraises the involvement of researchers with intellectual disabilities, and identifies facilitators and barriers to inclusive research. Researchers' experiences of engaging with inclusive research are synthesised. METHOD: Seventeen empirical studies focused upon inclusive health and social care research were identified. The associated inclusive research methodologies employed, and the stages in which researchers with intellectual disabilities were involved, along with the experiences of researchers with and without intellectual disabilities were synthesised. RESULTS: Papers focused on a broad range of health and social care topics and largely employed qualitative or mixed-methods designs. Researchers with intellectual disabilities were frequently involved with data collection, analysis and dissemination. Facilitators of inclusive research comprised sharing power, team working, having sufficient resources and making research methodologies accessible. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers with intellectual disabilities are involved in a wide range of methodologies and research tasks. How the added value of inclusive research is measured and its impact on outcomes, require consideration.

Psychological therapies for people with intellectual disabilities: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169323) was to evaluate the efficacy of psychological therapy for people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: A comprehensive literature search yielded 22,444 studies which were screened for eligibility. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a psychological therapy was delivered to people with intellectual disabilities compared to a group who did not receive the therapy. Thirty-three controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review, with 19 included within a DerSimonian-Laird random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was completed by clinical presentation, and by comparing randomised trials to non-randomised trials, and group-based to individually delivered psychotherapy. RESULTS: Following the removal of outliers, psychological therapy for a range of mental health problems was associated with a small and significant effect size, g = 0.43, 95% CI [0.20, 0.67], N = 698. There was evidence of heterogeneity and bias due to studies with small sample sizes and a lack of randomisation. Non-randomised studies were associated with a large effect size, g = 0.90, 95% CI [0.47, 1.32], N = 174, while randomised studies were associated with a small effect size, g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17, 0.55], N = 438, excluding outliers. Individually delivered psychological therapy was associated with a small and non-significant effect size, g = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.65], N = 146, while group-based interventions were associated with a small and significant effect size, g = 0.37, 95% CI [0.05, 0.68], N = 361, again, excluding outliers. Psychological therapy for anger was associated with a moderate effect size, g = 0.60, 95% CI [0.26, 0.93], N = 324, while treatment for depression and anxiety was associated with a small and non-significant effect size, g = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.85], N = 216, after outliers were removed. CONCLUSIONS: Studies are fraught with methodological weaknesses limiting the ability to make firm conclusions about the effectiveness of psychological therapy for people with intellectual disabilities. Improved reporting standards, appropriately powered and well-designed trials, and greater consideration of the nature and degree of adaptations to therapy are needed to minimise bias and increase the certainty of conclusions.

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of mental imagery tasks in people with an intellectual disability: Implications for psychological therapies.

Mental imagery is recognised for its role in both psychological distress and wellbeing, with mental imagery techniques increasingly being incorporated into psychological interventions. In this systematic review and narrative synthesis (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021240930), we identify and evaluate the evidence base for the phenomenon and phenomenology of mental imagery in people with intellectual disabilities, to ascertain the applicability of such interventions for this population. Electronic searches of nine databases and grey literature identified relevant publications. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts of retrieved records (n = 8609) and full-text articles (n = 101) against eligibility criteria. Data were extracted and quality appraised. Forty-onepapers met our eligibility criteria. The quality and designs were variable. Mental imagery was facilitated through ensuring participants understood tasks, providing opportunity to rehearse tasks (including using concrete prompts) and using scaffolding to help participants elaborate their responses. People with intellectual disabilities can engage with mental imagery, with appropriate adaptations, although the associated phenomenology has not been thoroughly investigated. Mental imagery interventions may be useful for people with intellectual disabilities with appropriate modifications.