Search

Background: The negative health impacts of prolonged caregiving are widely reported. However, there is a paucity of evidence concerning the impacts of a lifetime of caring on older parents of offspring with learning disabilities. Design and Methods: An exploratory postal survey including the Medical Outcome Study (Short Form) 36 version 2 (SF-36v2) was completed by 100 older parent carers. The reported survey is part of a larger mixed method study including in-depth interviews. Results: The majority of respondents (n = 91) reported caring for 50 h or more per week with multiple caregiving duties. While the SF-36v2 reported physical health of older parent carers to be similar to UK norms, their mental health was significantly reduced. Implications for practice: These important findings highlight the vulnerability of ageing parents of offspring with learning disabilities. This previously underreported situation warrants further investigation and urgent attention from health and social care agencies and professionals.

This article reports on the results of a qualitative study (in-depth interviews) carried out in the United Kingdom as part of a larger (two-phased) study investigating the experiences, health and future perspectives of older parent carers (six mothers and two fathers) of offspring with learning disabilities over a prolonged period of time. The objectives of this article are twofold: (i) to present a conceptual framework, grounded in the experiences of older parent carers who participated in this research and; (ii) to come to a more in-depth understanding of older parent carers' experiences of caregiving, and views on their own future. A detailed analysis of the data revealed important issues with regard to prolonged caregiving. Overall, older parent carers felt that they lacked support, information and practical resources throughout their caregiving career. Some parents continued in their caregiving role despite their deteriorating mental and/or physical health as there appeared to be no alternative, and most parent carers expressed that they were unable to think ahead to their own future and needs owing to the absence of suitable care alternatives. The findings suggest that there is an urgent need to review how individuals with learning disabilities and parent carers are supported throughout their lifespan. (Contains 1 figure and 2 tables.)

Objective: Inequalities in child oral health are a global challenge and the intersection of socioeconomic factors with educational additional support needs (ASN), including children with intellectual disabilities or autism, have thus far received limited attention in relatively small clinical studies. We aimed to address this evidence gap by investigating oral health and access to preventive dental services among children with ASN compared to the general child population. Methods: Cohort study linking data from six Scotland‐wide health and education databases compared: dental caries experience and tooth extraction via general anaesthetic; receipt of school‐based dental inspection; access to primary care and hospital dental services; and access to the Childsmile national oral health improvement programme between children with a range of ASN (intellectual disabilities, autism, social and other) and their peers for the school years 2016/17–2018/19 (n = 166 781). Results: Children with any ASN had higher rates of caries experience than those with no ASN, however, after adjustment for socioeconomic deprivation, sex, year, and school type only those with a social or other ASN remained at increased risk. Rates of tooth extraction under general anaesthesia in hospital were higher among children with intellectual disabilities (aRR = 1.67;95% CI = [1.16–2.37]). School‐based dental inspection access improved for children with intellectual disability and/or autism from 2016/17 onwards, although higher rates of child refusal on the day were observed in these groups (no ASN refusal: 5.4%; intellectual disability: 35.8%; autism: 40.3%). Children with any ASN were less likely to attend primary dental‐care regularly, and in those who attended, children with intellectual disability or autism were less likely than their peers to receive prevention (fluoride varnish, oral‐hygiene instruction, or dietary advice). Childsmile nursery‐supervised toothbrushing programme access among children with any ASN was similar to children with no ASN and children with intellectual disability (aRR = 1.27;95% CI = [1.12–1.45]) or autism (aRR = 1.32;95% CI = [1.19–1.45]) were more likely to receive support from Childsmile dental health support worker. Conclusions: We have identified inequalities in oral health and dental care for children with different ASN in Scotland with both a greater burden of disease among some groups and higher complexity of care; compounded by reduced and variable access to preventive dental services. Further efforts are needed to develop and improve preventive care pathways for children with ASN and integrate oral health to wider healthcare systems for these children to mitigate against oral health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Objective : To provide contemporary data on cancer mortality rates within the context of incidence in the population with intellectual disabilities. : Methods : Scotland's 2011 Census was used to identify adults with intellectual disabilities and controls with records linked to the Scottish Cancer Registry and death certificate data (March 2011-December 2019). The control cohort without intellectual disabilities and/or autism were used for indirect standardisation and calculation of crude incident rates/crude mortality rates, and age-sex standardised incident rate ratios/standardised mortality ratios (SIR/SMR), with 95% CIs. : Results : Adults with intellectual disabilities were most likely diagnosed cancers of digestive, specifically colorectal (14.2%), lung (9.3%), breast (female 22.9%), body of the uterus (female 9.3%) and male genital organs (male 17.6%). Higher incident cancers included metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin (female SIR=1.70, male SIR=2.08), body of uterus (female SIR=1.63), ovarian (female SIR=1.59), kidney (female SIR=1.85) and testicular (male SIR=2.49). SMRs were higher, regardless of a higher, similar or lower incidence (female SMR=1.34, male SMR=1.07). Excess mortality risk was found for colorectal (total SMR=1.54, male SMR=1.59), kidney (total SMR=2.01 u, female SMR=2.85 u), female genital organs (SMR=2.34 (ovarian SMR=2.86 u, body of uterus SMR=2.11), breast (female SMR=1.58) and metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin (female SMR=2.50 u, male SMR=2.84). : Conclusions : Adults with intellectual disabilities were more likely to die of cancer than the general population. Reasons for this may include later presentation/diagnosis (so poorer outcomes), poorer treatment/compliance or both. Accessible public health approaches are important for people with intellectual disabilities, and healthcare professionals need to be aware of the different cancer experiences faced by this population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There are well established national and local policies championing the need to provide dignity in care for older people. We have evidence as to what older people and their relatives understand by the term 'dignified care' but less insight into the perspectives of staff regarding their understanding of this key policy objective., Methods: A survey of health and social care professionals across four NHS Trusts in England to investigate how dignified care for older people is understood and delivered. We received 192 questionnaires of the 650 distributed., Results: Health and social care professionals described the meaning of dignified care in terms of their relationships with patients: 'respect' (47%), 'being treated as an individual' (40%), 'being involved in decision making' (26%) and 'privacy' (24%). 'Being treated as an individual' and 'maintaining privacy' were ranked as the most important components of dignified care. Physical caring tasks such as 'helping with washing, dressing and feeding' were rarely described as being part of dignified care and attributed much less importance than the relational components., Conclusion: Dignity in care is a concept with multiple meanings. Older people and their relatives focus upon the importance of providing physical care when describing what this means to them. Our participants focussed upon the relational aspects of care delivery rather than care itself. Proactive measures are therefore required to ensure that the physical aspects of care are met for all older people receiving care in NHS trusts.