Setting global research priorities for developmental disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and autism.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of intellectual disabilities (ID) has been estimated at 10.4/1000 worldwide with higher rates among children and adolescents in lower income countries. The objective of this paper is to address research priorities for development disabilities, notably ID and autism, at the global level and to propose the more rational use of scarce funds in addressing this under-investigated area. METHODS: An expert group was identified and invited to systematically list and score research questions. They applied the priority setting methodology of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to generate research questions and to evaluate them using a set of five criteria: answerability, feasibility, applicability and impact, support within the context and equity. FINDINGS: The results of this process clearly indicated that the important priorities for future research related to the need for effective and efficient approaches to early intervention, empowerment of families supporting a person with developmental disability and to address preventable causes of poor health in people with ID and autism. CONCLUSIONS: For the public health and other systems to become more effective in delivering appropriate support to persons with developmental disabilities, greater (and more targeted) investment in research is required to produce evidence of what works consistent with international human rights standards.

A study of the attribution style, self-efficacy, and dietary restraint in female binge and non-binge eaters.

The purpose of this study was to identify the role that attribution style and self-efficacy expectations have in overweight binge and non-binge eaters. The subjects were women (n=210) enrolled for weight control treatment, who completed a questionnaire to assess attribution style and self efficacy expectations. They were categorized into three binge eating disorder (BED) groups: non-BED, borderline BED and BED. The results of the ANOVA analysis indicated that the borderline and BED groups were significantly similar in terms of all measures of attribution and self-efficacy; and logistic regression analysis that the odds of being borderline BED or BED were greater if an individual had internal attributions, and more likely in the presence of diminished self-efficacy expectations. The subjects with low levels of eating self-efficacy and internal, global, and uncontrollable attributions were also more likely to have borderline BED and BED. The implications of the borderline BED category are discussed in relationship to the DSM-IV BED diagnosis.