Eilish A. Burke, Rachael Carroll, Maire O'Dwyer, J Bernard Walsh, Philip McCallion, Mary McCarron
{"title":"老龄化、骨质疏松症和智力残疾;风险不同,诊断可能被遗漏","authors":"Eilish A. Burke, Rachael Carroll, Maire O'Dwyer, J Bernard Walsh, Philip McCallion, Mary McCarron","doi":"10.1111/bld.12598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>People with intellectual disability often present atypically for various health conditions, making it challenging to identify concerns, particularly when communication challenges are also considered. Additionally, they may face barriers to healthcare access, resulting in many conditions going unnoticed. Health screening inequities are also evident in this population, and osteoporosis, a silent condition often only diagnosed postfracture, requires screening; however, if this does not happen, it may result in unnecessary fracture. Therefore the aim of this study is to identify predictors of osteoporosis in older adults with intellectual disability and examine potential inequity in the diagnosis of the condition.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The study used data from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). Bone quality was measured using quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Logistic regression was performed to identify significant predictors of poor bone quality, including chronic health conditions, dietary intake, medication use and activity levels.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Out of 575 participants who completed QUS, osteoporosis prevalence was objectively measured at 41%, with a further 33.2% measured within the osteopenic range, but less than 2 in 10 had a doctor's diagnosis of osteoporosis. Reported Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry screening uptake was low at 18.2%. Three major predictor variables of osteoporosis and osteopenia were found significant: difficulty walking 100 yards, taking antiepileptic drugs medicines and taking proton pump inhibitors. The model achieved an overall classification accuracy of 70.8% for osteopenia and 72.5% for identifying osteoporosis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The study highlights the different risk factors in people with intellectual disability, the potential for missed diagnoses and the likelihood there is inadequate screening. There is an urgent need for robust risk assessment and reasonable adjustments to ensure equitable screening and targeted preventive strategies. Clinicians must consider specific concerns for this population to avoid missed diagnoses and reduce the adverse effects of osteoporosis/osteopenia, such as an increased risk of fragility fractures.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47232,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"52 3","pages":"562-576"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bld.12598","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ageing, osteoporosis and intellectual disability; risks differ, and diagnosis can be missed\",\"authors\":\"Eilish A. Burke, Rachael Carroll, Maire O'Dwyer, J Bernard Walsh, Philip McCallion, Mary McCarron\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bld.12598\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>People with intellectual disability often present atypically for various health conditions, making it challenging to identify concerns, particularly when communication challenges are also considered. Additionally, they may face barriers to healthcare access, resulting in many conditions going unnoticed. Health screening inequities are also evident in this population, and osteoporosis, a silent condition often only diagnosed postfracture, requires screening; however, if this does not happen, it may result in unnecessary fracture. Therefore the aim of this study is to identify predictors of osteoporosis in older adults with intellectual disability and examine potential inequity in the diagnosis of the condition.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study used data from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). Bone quality was measured using quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Logistic regression was performed to identify significant predictors of poor bone quality, including chronic health conditions, dietary intake, medication use and activity levels.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Out of 575 participants who completed QUS, osteoporosis prevalence was objectively measured at 41%, with a further 33.2% measured within the osteopenic range, but less than 2 in 10 had a doctor's diagnosis of osteoporosis. Reported Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry screening uptake was low at 18.2%. Three major predictor variables of osteoporosis and osteopenia were found significant: difficulty walking 100 yards, taking antiepileptic drugs medicines and taking proton pump inhibitors. The model achieved an overall classification accuracy of 70.8% for osteopenia and 72.5% for identifying osteoporosis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study highlights the different risk factors in people with intellectual disability, the potential for missed diagnoses and the likelihood there is inadequate screening. There is an urgent need for robust risk assessment and reasonable adjustments to ensure equitable screening and targeted preventive strategies. Clinicians must consider specific concerns for this population to avoid missed diagnoses and reduce the adverse effects of osteoporosis/osteopenia, such as an increased risk of fragility fractures.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Learning Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"52 3\",\"pages\":\"562-576\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bld.12598\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Learning Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bld.12598\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bld.12598","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ageing, osteoporosis and intellectual disability; risks differ, and diagnosis can be missed
Background
People with intellectual disability often present atypically for various health conditions, making it challenging to identify concerns, particularly when communication challenges are also considered. Additionally, they may face barriers to healthcare access, resulting in many conditions going unnoticed. Health screening inequities are also evident in this population, and osteoporosis, a silent condition often only diagnosed postfracture, requires screening; however, if this does not happen, it may result in unnecessary fracture. Therefore the aim of this study is to identify predictors of osteoporosis in older adults with intellectual disability and examine potential inequity in the diagnosis of the condition.
Methods
The study used data from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). Bone quality was measured using quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Logistic regression was performed to identify significant predictors of poor bone quality, including chronic health conditions, dietary intake, medication use and activity levels.
Results
Out of 575 participants who completed QUS, osteoporosis prevalence was objectively measured at 41%, with a further 33.2% measured within the osteopenic range, but less than 2 in 10 had a doctor's diagnosis of osteoporosis. Reported Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry screening uptake was low at 18.2%. Three major predictor variables of osteoporosis and osteopenia were found significant: difficulty walking 100 yards, taking antiepileptic drugs medicines and taking proton pump inhibitors. The model achieved an overall classification accuracy of 70.8% for osteopenia and 72.5% for identifying osteoporosis.
Conclusion
The study highlights the different risk factors in people with intellectual disability, the potential for missed diagnoses and the likelihood there is inadequate screening. There is an urgent need for robust risk assessment and reasonable adjustments to ensure equitable screening and targeted preventive strategies. Clinicians must consider specific concerns for this population to avoid missed diagnoses and reduce the adverse effects of osteoporosis/osteopenia, such as an increased risk of fragility fractures.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Learning Disabilities is an interdisciplinary international peer-reviewed journal which aims to be the leading journal in the learning disability field. It is the official Journal of the British Institute of Learning Disabilities. It encompasses contemporary debate/s and developments in research, policy and practice that are relevant to the field of learning disabilities. It publishes original refereed papers, regular special issues giving comprehensive coverage to specific subject areas, and especially commissioned keynote reviews on major topics. In addition, there are reviews of books and training materials, and a letters section. The focus of the journal is on practical issues, with current debates and research reports. Topics covered could include, but not be limited to: Current trends in residential and day-care service Inclusion, rehabilitation and quality of life Education and training Historical and inclusive pieces [particularly welcomed are those co-written with people with learning disabilities] Therapies Mental health issues Employment and occupation Recreation and leisure; Ethical issues, advocacy and rights Family and carers Health issues Adoption and fostering Causation and management of specific syndromes Staff training New technology Policy critique and impact.