Article

The impact of intellectual functioning on symptoms and service use in schizophrenia.

Royal College of Psychiatrists-College Research Unit, London, UK.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research (Impact Factor: 1.88). 05/2006; 50(Pt 4):288-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00837.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study aims to evaluate differences in the clinical profiles and use of psychiatric services by people with schizophrenia with and without borderline intellectual functioning. Both groups in this study were receiving standard community psychiatric care.
A naturalistic sample of 372 people with schizophrenia completed the National Adult Reading Test. Data were collected prospectively over 18 months on psychiatric symptoms and service use. Three hundred and thirteen had normal intellectual functioning (mean age 43, range 20-76 years) and 59 had borderline or lower intellectual functioning (mean age 45, range 21-81 years). This was defined by a National Adult Reading Test error score of more than 40.
People with borderline or lower intellectual functioning had a lower quality of life, more severe psychotic symptoms, reduced functioning and fewer antidepressant prescriptions. There were no significant differences in service use including hospital admission.
People with schizophrenia and borderline or lower intellectual functioning are a more disabled group within general adult psychiatric services who should be the focus of initiatives for improved service delivery.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current policy in UK health services emphasizes that, where possible, people with intellectual disabilities should access the same services as people without intellectual disabilities. One of the barriers to this is the confidence of clinicians and therapists. In this paper, we report on the development of a scale to describe the confidence of therapists in working with people with intellectual disabilities (the Therapy Confidence Scale–Intellectual Disabilities [TCS-ID]). One-hundred and eighty-one therapists who provided talking therapies but who did not work primarily with people with intellectual disabilities completed the scale; 43 people completed the scale twice for test–retest reliability purposes. One-hundred and seven people also completed a scale of general therapy self-efficacy. The TCS-ID has a single factor structure accounting for 62% of the variance, Cronbach's alpha for the scale is 0.93 and test–retest reliability is 0.83. There are significant differences in confidence based upon participants experience in working with people with intellectual disabilities and their therapeutic orientation, and there is a significant association between the TCS-ID and the General Therapy Self-efficacy Scale. Sixty clinicians working in mainstream mental health services received training on adapting their therapeutic approaches to meet the needs of people with intellectual disabilities. The TCS-ID was used pre-training and post-training and demonstrated a significant increase in confidence for all group. We suggest that the scale has good psychometric properties and can be used to develop an understanding of the impact of training for mainstream therapist in working with people with intellectual disabilities. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key Practitioner MessageThere is increasing emphasis on people with intellectual disabilities receiving services from mainstream mental health services.There is no research describing the experiences and outcomes of people with intellectual disabilities receiving mainstream talking therapy services.The confidence that clinicians have in working with people with intellectual disabilities may be a barrier to them receiving mainstream services.The Therapy Confidence Scale–Intellectual Disabilities is a psychometrically sound scale for measuring the confidence of therapists in working with people with intellectual disabilities and is a useful outcome measure for training clinicians to work with people with intellectual disabilities.
    Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 05/2014; · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although neurocognitive deficits are an integral characteristic of schizophrenia, there is inconclusive evidence as to whether they manifest across the schizophrenia-spectrum. We conducted two studies and a meta-analysis comparing neurocognitive functioning between psychometrically defined schizotypy and control groups recruited from a college population. Study One compared groups on measures of specific and global neurocognition, and subjective and objective quality of life. Study Two examined working memory and subjective cognitive complaints. Across both studies, the schizotypy group showed notably decreased subjective (d = 1.52) and objective (d = 1.02) quality of life and greater subjective cognitive complaints (d = 1.88); however, neurocognition was normal across all measures (d's < .35). Our meta-analysis of 33 studies examining neurocognition in at-risk college students revealed between-group differences in the negligible effect size range for most domains. The schizotypy group demonstrated deficits of a small effect size for working memory and set-shifting abilities. Although at-risk individuals report relatively profound neurocognitive deficits and impoverished quality of life, neurocognitive functioning assessed behaviorally is largely intact. Our data suggest that traditionally defined neurocognitive deficits do not approximate the magnitude of subjective complaints associated with psychometrically defined schizotypy. (JINS, 2013, 19, 1-14).
    Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 03/2013; · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) is conceptualized as the frontier that delimits "normal" intellectual functioning from intellectual disability (IQ 71-85). In spite of its magnitude, its prevalence cannot be quantified and its diagnosis has not yet been defined. OBJECTIVES: To elaborate a conceptual framework and to establish consensus guidelines. METHOD: A mixed qualitative methodology, including frame analysis and nominal groups techniques, was used. The literature was extensively reviewed in evidence based medical databases, scientific publications, and the grey literature. This information was studied and a framing document was prepared. RESULTS: Scientific publications covering BIF are scarce. The term that yields a bigger number of results is "Borderline Intelligence". The Working Group detected a number of areas in which consensus was needed and wrote a consensus document covering the conclusions of the experts and the framing document. CONCLUSIONS: It is a priority to reach an international consensus about the BIF construct and its operative criteria, as well as to develop specific tools for screening and diagnosis. It is also necessary to define criteria that enable its incidence and prevalence. To know what interventions are the most efficient, and what are the needs of this population, is vital to implement an integral model of care centred on the individual.
    Revista de psiquiatria y salud mental. 02/2013;