Cited by 28Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchDisability Rights and RepresentationHealth Services Management and Policy

An investigation into the implementation of Annual Health Checks for people with intellectual disabilities

Walmsley, Jan·2011·Journal of Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

This project, conducted during 2010 by a researcher working with a self-advocacy group, investigated the implementation of Annual Health Checks (AHCs) for people with intellectual disabilities in Oxfordshire, where only 26.1 percent of AHCs were completed in 2009–10 (national average 41 percent). AHCs were introduced in England in 2008 as a response to findings that people with intellectual disabilities have significantly worse health care than other groups. GP practices are financially incentivized to offer AHCs. This study found that slow progress in implementing AHCs was attributable to: uncertainty over who was eligible; limited awareness in general practices about the legal duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to facilitate access; limited awareness of AHCs and their potential benefits amongst carers and adults with intellectual disabilities; and in some cases scepticism that AHCs were either necessary or beneficial. The article also explores the benefits of undertaking this project in partnership with a self-advocacy group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1744629511423722

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • The use of easy-read information, sign language, non-face-to-face communication, such as via the telephone, not overloading the service user with verbal information, and use of virtual reality have been suggested as preferred methods of communication for this population.

    “The use of easy-read information, sign language, non-face-to-face communication, such as via the telephone, not overloading the service user with verbal information, and use of virtual reality have been suggested as preferred methods of communication for this population.26,52”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walmsley, J.
Affiliations
London South Bank University (GB)
Corresponding author
Walmsley, Jan
Venue
Journal of Intellectual Disabilities
Published
2011-09
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
157-166
ISSN
  • 1744-6295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6309
OpenAlex
W1997394419
Cited by
28
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Intellectual Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Royal College of General Practitioners
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
Keywords
annual health checks, intellectual disability, general practice, self-advocacy groups, reasonable accommodation, health disparities, Oxfordshire
MeSH terms
England, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Physical Examination, Primary Health Care, Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, General Practitioners

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