↓ Skip to main content

Health characteristics and consultation patterns of people with intellectual disability: a cross-sectional database study in English general practice

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
34 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health characteristics and consultation patterns of people with intellectual disability: a cross-sectional database study in English general practice
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x684301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iain M Carey, Sunil M Shah, Fay J Hosking, Stephen DeWilde, Tess Harris, Carole Beighton, Derek G Cook

Abstract

People with intellectual disability (ID) are a group with high levels of healthcare needs; however, comprehensive information on these needs and service use is very limited. To describe chronic disease, comorbidity, disability, and general practice use among people with ID compared with the general population. This study is a cross-sectional analysis of a primary care database including 408 English general practices in 2012. A total of 14 751 adults with ID, aged 18-84 years, were compared with 86 221 age-, sex- and practice-matched controls. Depending on the outcome, prevalence (PR), risk (RR), or odds (OR) ratios comparing patients with ID with matched controls are shown. Patients with ID had a markedly higher prevalence of recorded epilepsy (18.5%, PR 25.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 23.29 to 27.57), severe mental illness (8.6%, PR 9.10, 95% CI = 8.34 to 9.92), and dementia (1.1%, PR 7.52, 95% CI = 5.95 to 9.49), as well as moderately increased rates of hypothyroidism and heart failure (PR>2.0). However, recorded prevalence of ischaemic heart disease and cancer was approximately 30% lower than the general population. The average annual number of primary care consultations was 6.29 for patients with ID, compared with 3.89 for matched controls. Patients with ID were less likely to have longer doctor consultations (OR 0.73, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.77), and had lower continuity of care with the same doctor (OR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.82). Compared with the general population, people with ID have generally higher overall levels of chronic disease and greater primary care use. Ensuring access to high-quality chronic disease management, especially for epilepsy and mental illness, will help address these greater healthcare needs. Continuity of care and longer appointment times are important potential improvements in primary care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 199 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 15%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 57 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Psychology 22 11%
Social Sciences 15 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 64 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2017.
All research outputs
#693,252
of 25,388,837 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#288
of 4,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,042
of 312,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#8
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,837 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.