Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2021
Mortality disparities and deprivation among people with intellectual disabilities in England: 2000-2019.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tyrer Freya, Morriss Richard, Kiani Reza, Gangadharan Satheesh K, Rutherford Mark J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The effect of policy initiatives and deprivation on mortality disparities in people with intellectual disabilities is not clear.
METHODS: An electronic health record observational study of linked primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the Office for National Statistics deaths data from 2000 to 2019 was undertaken. All-cause and cause-specific mortality for people with intellectual disabilities were calculated by gender and deprivation status (index of multiple deprivation quintile) using direct age-standardised mortality rates (all years) and ratios (SMR; 2000-2009 vs 2010-2019).
RESULTS: Among 1.0 million patients (n=33 844 with intellectual disability; n=980 586 general population without intellectual disability), differential mortality was consistently higher in people with intellectual disabilities and there was no evidence of attenuation over time. There was a dose-response relationship between all-cause mortality and lower deprivation quintile in the general population which was not observed in people with intellectual disabilities. Cause-specific SMR were consistent in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 calendar periods, with a threefold increased risk of death in both males and females with intellectual disabilities (SMR ranges: 2.91-3.51). Mortality was highest from epilepsy (SMR ranges: 22.90-52.74) and aspiration pneumonia (SMR ranges: 19.31-35.44). SMRs were disproportionately high for people with intellectual disabilities living in the least deprived areas.
CONCLUSIONS: People with intellectual disabilities in England continue to experience significant mortality disparities and there is no evidence that the situation is improving. Deprivation indicators may not be effective for targeting vulnerable individuals.
METHODS: An electronic health record observational study of linked primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the Office for National Statistics deaths data from 2000 to 2019 was undertaken. All-cause and cause-specific mortality for people with intellectual disabilities were calculated by gender and deprivation status (index of multiple deprivation quintile) using direct age-standardised mortality rates (all years) and ratios (SMR; 2000-2009 vs 2010-2019).
RESULTS: Among 1.0 million patients (n=33 844 with intellectual disability; n=980 586 general population without intellectual disability), differential mortality was consistently higher in people with intellectual disabilities and there was no evidence of attenuation over time. There was a dose-response relationship between all-cause mortality and lower deprivation quintile in the general population which was not observed in people with intellectual disabilities. Cause-specific SMR were consistent in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 calendar periods, with a threefold increased risk of death in both males and females with intellectual disabilities (SMR ranges: 2.91-3.51). Mortality was highest from epilepsy (SMR ranges: 22.90-52.74) and aspiration pneumonia (SMR ranges: 19.31-35.44). SMRs were disproportionately high for people with intellectual disabilities living in the least deprived areas.
CONCLUSIONS: People with intellectual disabilities in England continue to experience significant mortality disparities and there is no evidence that the situation is improving. Deprivation indicators may not be effective for targeting vulnerable individuals.