Abstract

BackgroundThere is extensive evidence from research undertaken on general population samples that people who have more extensive and closer social networks and people who report feeling connected to their local community tend to have better health. However, relatively few studies have examined the relationship between the social connectedness of people with intellectual disabilities and their health.MethodsSecondary analysis of data from Understanding Society, a new longitudinal study focusing on the life experiences of UK citizens. We identified 279 participants aged 16–49 (1.1% of the unweighted age-restricted sample) as having intellectual disability, and 22,927 as not having intellectual disability. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate between group differences adjusting for potential confounding personal characteristics (e.g., gender).ResultsBritish adults with intellectual disability had less favorable perceptions of important neighborhood characteristics and lower levels of social and civic participation than their non-disabled peers. Favorable perceptions of important neighborhood characteristics and higher levels of social and civic participation were associated with more positive self-rated health for adults with and without intellectual disability. For adults with intellectual disability this was particularly the case with regard to employment, feeling safe outside in the dark and being able to access services when needed. The between-group differences in perceptions of important neighborhood characteristics and levels of social and civic participation accounted for a significant proportion of the elevated risk for poorer self-rated health observed among adults with intellectual disability.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence to suggest that the health inequalities experienced by people with intellectual disabilities may be partially attributable to their less favorable perceptions of important neighborhood characteristics and lower levels of social and civic participation.

Highlights

  • There is extensive evidence from research undertaken on general population samples that people who have more extensive and closer social networks and people who report feeling connected to their local community tend to have better health

  • This may be an important omission given that: (1) there is extensive evidence from general population studies that people who have more extensive and closer social networks, people who report feeling connected to their local community and people living in more supportive neighborhoods tend to have better health [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]; and (2) there is extensive evidence that people with intellectual disabilities often have highly restricted social networks and live in less supportive neighborhoods [23,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]

  • In the first stage of analysis we made simple bivariate comparisons between participants with and without intellectual disability with regard to available demographic characteristics that have a potential association with health (Table 1)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is extensive evidence from research undertaken on general population samples that people who have more extensive and closer social networks and people who report feeling connected to their local community tend to have better health. Few studies have examined the relationship between indicators of either neighborhood quality or the social connectedness of people with intellectual disabilities (e.g., levels of civic engagement) and their health [21,22,23] This may be an important omission given that: (1) there is extensive evidence from general population studies that people who have more extensive and closer social networks, people who report feeling connected to their local community and people living in more supportive neighborhoods tend to have better health [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]; and (2) there is extensive evidence that people with intellectual disabilities often have highly restricted social networks and live in less supportive neighborhoods [23,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.