Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Why do we continue to exclude the most vulnerable in our society in diabetes research and education? Addressing the challenges presented by people with intellectual disability.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

People with an intellectual disability are more likely to develop diabetes compared to their non-disabled peers. There has been a history of exclusion of people with an intellectual disability from diabetes research and education: we must now challenge this from a human rights perspective. In challenging these perceptions, we must identify the ethical and methodological reasons for exclusion and offer practical solutions to these challenges.

These barriers to inclusion focus on three core areas. Firstly, individual factors concerning the person with the disability (can the person give their own informed consent, can the person read/write, completion of self-report measures?). Secondly, factors concerning the methodology and design of the research study (can studies recruit the numbers needed, can people with intellectual disability understand/accept randomisation?). And, thirdly, system/organisational factors pertaining to the enablers/barriers to engaging in and completing research studies (buy-in from senior managers, staff acting as gatekeepers, maternalistic attitudes held by gatekeepers, fidelity of intervention delivery).

This Janet Kinson paper will explore these intentional and unintentional exclusion criteria that are so often applied to people with an intellectual disability in research trial studies. This paper will dispel the myths and offer solutions for including people with an intellectual disability in diabetes research and education. Using the UK national diabetes structured education programme, DESMOND, this paper will highlight the types of reasonable adjustments that can be made to adapt this programme suitable for adults with an intellectual disability: called DESMOND-ID. This paper will demonstrate how, with reasonable adjustments, this newly-adapted DESMOND-ID education programme then can be tested within a National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical randomised control trial across the UK investigating the programme's clinical and cost-effectiveness.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6-10
Number of pages5
JournalPractical Diabetes
Volume41
Issue number2
Early online date20 May 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished online - 20 May 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Funding

Our research team received funding from Diabetes UK in 2015\u201317 to adapt the DESMOND structured self\u2010management diabetes education programme. The team, comprising researchers, clinicians and adults with an intellectual disability, acknowledged the heterogeneity of this population regarding ability (borderline, mild, moderate and severe/profound), cognitive deficits (i.e. processing information/re\u2010call/re\u2010appraisals of beliefs and behaviours), communication difficulties and comprehension, low levels of literacy skills, different learning skills, and the importance of engaging with family and paid carers. The core aims and objectives of the original DESMOND education programme were maintained throughout this adaptation process \u2013 although these aims and objectives were simplified. We renamed this adapted education programme \u2018DESMOND\u2010ID\u2019.

Funders
Diabetes UK

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

    • intellectual disability
    • diabetes
    • research
    • reasonable adjustments

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Why do we continue to exclude the most vulnerable in our society in diabetes research and education? Addressing the challenges presented by people with intellectual disability.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this