Cited by 36Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport

Patient and provider views on the use of medical services by women with intellectual disabilities

Wilkinson, J., Dreyfus, D., Bowen, D., Bokhour, B.·2013·Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Abstract

Background People with intellectual disabilities (ID) receive primary care in community‐based practices and are encouraged to participate in the physician–patient relationship. However, the nature of this participation is not known. Methods Qualitative data were analysed to obtain perspectives from patients and providers regarding clinic visits. Patient participants were recruited from community organisations, while physician participants were recruited from emails and phone calls to local and regional practices and a national and regional list serve. Analysis methods derived from grounded theory were used. Results Twenty‐seven women with ID and 22 family physicians were interviewed. Themes important to both groups included time, how the support worker should be used in the encounter and the nature of the physician–patient relationship. Patients expressed frustration at how little time they spent with their physician, and wished that physicians would speak directly to them instead of to their support worker. Physicians felt that patients with ID took too much time, and said that they preferred communicating with the support worker. The interviews also revealed unconscious biases about people with ID. Conclusions Patient participation is encouraged for people with ID, but is limited because of both physician and patient factors. Greater awareness of these factors may improve care for patients with ID.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01606.x

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilkinson, J., Dreyfus, D., Bowen, D., & Bokhour, B.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Wilkinson, J.
Venue
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09-14
Volume
57
Issue
11
Pages
1058-1067
ISSN
  • 0964-2633 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2788
OpenAlex
W1559603700
Cited by
36
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Intellectual Disability Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K07CA134547)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Keywords
intellectual disability, women with intellectual disabilities, physician-patient relationship, patient participation, general practitioners, support staff, primary care, implicit bias, clinic visits, patient communication, time constraints
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Health Services, Humans, Male, Intellectual Disability, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Primary Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review