C W McGrother1, S Bhaumik, C F Thorp, J M Watson, N A Taub. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK. cm45@le.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous reports have suggested that South Asian and white UK populations have different prevalences of intellectual disability (ID), related psychological morbidity and service use. The aim of the present study was to compare these rates among South Asian and white adults in Leicestershire, UK. METHOD: This cross-sectional study is comprised of two parts. The analysis of prevalence is based on data from all South Asian and white adults known to the Leicestershire Learning Disabilities Register in 1991, with population denominators being drawn from the 1991 census. The other analyses use data collected from the most recent semi-structured home interviews, carried out between 1987 and 1998, with 206 South Asian and 2334 white adults. RESULTS: The prevalence of ID in adults in Leicestershire is 3.20 per 1000 in South Asians and 3.62 per 1000 in whites. Among adults with ID, South Asians have similar prevalences of disabilities to whites and significantly lower skill levels. South Asians show similar levels of psychological morbidity, but make significantly lower use than whites of psychiatric services, residential care and respite care. South Asians use community services as extensively as whites, but feel that they have a substantially greater unmet need, especially with regard to social services. CONCLUSION: South Asian and white populations have similar prevalences of ID and related psychological morbidity. Culturally appropriate services for South Asian adults may need to focus on skill development and community care.
BACKGROUND: Previous reports have suggested that South Asian and white UK populations have different prevalences of intellectual disability (ID), related psychological morbidity and service use. The aim of the present study was to compare these rates among South Asian and white adults in Leicestershire, UK. METHOD: This cross-sectional study is comprised of two parts. The analysis of prevalence is based on data from all South Asian and white adults known to the Leicestershire Learning Disabilities Register in 1991, with population denominators being drawn from the 1991 census. The other analyses use data collected from the most recent semi-structured home interviews, carried out between 1987 and 1998, with 206 South Asian and 2334 white adults. RESULTS: The prevalence of ID in adults in Leicestershire is 3.20 per 1000 in South Asians and 3.62 per 1000 in whites. Among adults with ID, South Asians have similar prevalences of disabilities to whites and significantly lower skill levels. South Asians show similar levels of psychological morbidity, but make significantly lower use than whites of psychiatric services, residential care and respite care. South Asians use community services as extensively as whites, but feel that they have a substantially greater unmet need, especially with regard to social services. CONCLUSION: South Asian and white populations have similar prevalences of ID and related psychological morbidity. Culturally appropriate services for South Asian adults may need to focus on skill development and community care.