Prevalence of mental disorders in people with intellectual disabilities across the lifespan: an umbrella review
Santambrogio, J.; Boido, G.; Marchetti, M.; Rudra, S.; Besana, F.; Francia, E.; Terrevazzi, S.; Papola, D.; Barbui, C.; Bertelli, M.; Clerici, M.; D'Agostino, A.; Marston, L.; Hassiotis, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience higher rates of mental disorders, contributing to restrictive practices and premature mortality. Prevalence data are essential to inform support and policy decisions. AimsTo examine the prevalence of mental disorders in people with ID across the lifespan. MethodsWe systematically searched six databases and conducted a manual search up to December 15th, 2024, to identify systematic reviews on the prevalence of mental disorders in people with ID of any aetiology with or without other neurodevelopmental conditions. We summarised prevalence data from systematic reviews with meta-analyses and from systematic reviews with a narrative synthesis of results, including subgroup analyses (ID level, sex, age, autism), where possible. We compared these results with published prevalence rates of mental disorders in people without ID. PROSPERO: CRD42024610611. ResultsWe included twenty-six systematic reviews: seven with meta-analyses, and nineteen with subgroup or narrative synthesis. Compared to the general population, people with ID showed higher prevalence of schizophrenia (3.55%-4.8%), anxiety (5.4%-5.5%), and obsessive-compulsive (2.4%) disorders, while mood disorders (6%-7%), personality and post-traumatic stress disorders were less frequent, though data were limited. Study quality was moderate to critically low (AMSTAR-2). An emerging picture of mental disorders is evident in syndromic ID, with high anxiety rates in fragile X, Williams, and 22q11.2 deletion syndromes, and in co-occurring autism. This umbrella review revealed gaps in research on other mental disorders (i.e., dementia, bipolar, substance use, and eating disorders) and a lack of prevalence data stratified by age, sex, and ID level. This is compounded by the absence of dependable diagnostic criteria suitable for people with ID. ConclusionsThis umbrella review confirms the high prevalence of mental disorders among people with intellectual disabilities, and highlights limited evidence for several conditions and population subgroups. Standardised, high-quality epidemiological research is needed to guide clinical practice and policy.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Trends in Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorders among U.S. Veterans with and without Psychiatric Disorders Between 2005 and 2019 95%
- Psychiatric comorbidities in substance use disorders: Sex-based differences in a national real-world clinic sample 93%
- Identifying novel subtypes of irritability using a developmental genetic approach 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Adolescents and adults with FOXP1 syndrome show high rates of anxiety and externalizing behaviors but not psychiatric decompensation or skill loss 95%
- Patients with affective disorders profit most from telemedical treatment: Evidence from a naturalistic patient cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic 94%
- Applications of Large Language Models in Psychiatry: A Systematic Review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Examining sex differences in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric genetic risk in anxiety and depression 94%
- The UK Biobank Mental Health Enhancement 2022: Methods and Results 93%
- Validation of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) emotional subscale in assessing depression and anxiety across development 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review 93%
- Cognitive performance in children and adolescents at high-risk for obsessive-compulsive disorder 91%
- Short-term functional outcome in psychotic patients. Results of the Turku Early Psychosis Study (TEPS) 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.