What are the priorities for health data for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities? It varies by whom you ask

Abstract

AbstractNumerous countries have recognized the need for improved surveillance data on the health of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Federal agencies need additional information about the prevalence and health of persons with IDD to guide decisions about policies and programs. Without such data, health inequities and health needs of people with IDD can go unrecognized and be ignored, and resources may be misdirected. The priority areas for needed information, however, have not been well documented. To determine priorities for health data for persons with IDD, we conducted focus groups with three types of stakeholders from around the United States: researchers/practitioners, adults with IDD, and family members. Focus group dialogue was coded for themes and compared across stakeholder categories. Themes common to all groups included valuing people with IDD and respecting their self‐determination; affirming the need for data including longitudinal data; holding a holistic view of physical, mental, social, and sexual health; and access to quality health care, medications, and assistive equipment. Each group also contributed unique ideas such as importance of trust for disclosure of private information, stereotypes and discrimination, and social influences on health. Stakeholders identified specific health conditions to monitor, including COVID‐19. Findings have implications for establishing a health surveillance data system and for practice more generally. Health needs to be considered holistically, including physical, mental, social, and sexual health. A data framework needs to extend beyond a cross‐sectional comparative framework to include longitudinal tracking and monitoring conditions unique to persons with IDD. People with IDD may not trust nor disclose sensitive information about their disability and health to support persons and surveyors, which has implications for under‐reporting of prevalence of IDD and validity of proxy‐reporting. Input from multiple stakeholders is fundamental to developing a usable and relevant data collection system.