{"title":"在加拿大利用国家调查对智障人士进行心理健康监测。","authors":"I. Bielska, H. Ouellette-Kuntz, D. Hunter","doi":"10.24095/HPCDP.32.4.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nIndividuals with intellectual disabilities have a higher prevalence of health problems, including psychiatric and behavioural conditions, than the general population. However, there is little population-based information in Canada about individuals with a dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorder and intellectual impairment. The aim of this study was to determine whether the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) and the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) could be used to estimate the prevalence of dual diagnosis in Canada.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe undertook a secondary analysis of two population-based surveys to determine if these could be used to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric or behavioural conditions among adults with intellectual disabilities in Canada.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe surveys reflect prevalence estimates of intellectual disabilities (CCHS: 0.2% and PALS: 0.5%) that are considerably lower than those published in the literature. While it was possible to calculate the proportion of individuals with a dual diagnosis (CCHS: 30.6% and PALS: 44.3%), the surveys were of limited use for detailed analyses. The estimates of prevalence derived from the surveys, especially from the CCHS, were of unacceptable quality due to high sampling variability and selection bias.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe estimates should be interpreted with caution due to concerns regarding the representativeness of the sample with intellectual disabilities in the national surveys.","PeriodicalId":50696,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada","volume":"1 1","pages":"194-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using national surveys for mental health surveillance of individuals with intellectual disabilities in Canada.\",\"authors\":\"I. Bielska, H. Ouellette-Kuntz, D. Hunter\",\"doi\":\"10.24095/HPCDP.32.4.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION\\nIndividuals with intellectual disabilities have a higher prevalence of health problems, including psychiatric and behavioural conditions, than the general population. However, there is little population-based information in Canada about individuals with a dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorder and intellectual impairment. The aim of this study was to determine whether the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) and the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) could be used to estimate the prevalence of dual diagnosis in Canada.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nWe undertook a secondary analysis of two population-based surveys to determine if these could be used to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric or behavioural conditions among adults with intellectual disabilities in Canada.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe surveys reflect prevalence estimates of intellectual disabilities (CCHS: 0.2% and PALS: 0.5%) that are considerably lower than those published in the literature. While it was possible to calculate the proportion of individuals with a dual diagnosis (CCHS: 30.6% and PALS: 44.3%), the surveys were of limited use for detailed analyses. The estimates of prevalence derived from the surveys, especially from the CCHS, were of unacceptable quality due to high sampling variability and selection bias.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nThe estimates should be interpreted with caution due to concerns regarding the representativeness of the sample with intellectual disabilities in the national surveys.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"194-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24095/HPCDP.32.4.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24095/HPCDP.32.4.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Using national surveys for mental health surveillance of individuals with intellectual disabilities in Canada.
INTRODUCTION
Individuals with intellectual disabilities have a higher prevalence of health problems, including psychiatric and behavioural conditions, than the general population. However, there is little population-based information in Canada about individuals with a dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorder and intellectual impairment. The aim of this study was to determine whether the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) and the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) could be used to estimate the prevalence of dual diagnosis in Canada.
METHODS
We undertook a secondary analysis of two population-based surveys to determine if these could be used to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric or behavioural conditions among adults with intellectual disabilities in Canada.
RESULTS
The surveys reflect prevalence estimates of intellectual disabilities (CCHS: 0.2% and PALS: 0.5%) that are considerably lower than those published in the literature. While it was possible to calculate the proportion of individuals with a dual diagnosis (CCHS: 30.6% and PALS: 44.3%), the surveys were of limited use for detailed analyses. The estimates of prevalence derived from the surveys, especially from the CCHS, were of unacceptable quality due to high sampling variability and selection bias.
CONCLUSION
The estimates should be interpreted with caution due to concerns regarding the representativeness of the sample with intellectual disabilities in the national surveys.