Cognitive and functional differences in aging with and without intellectual disabilities: Observational study
Resumen: The lifespan of people with cognitive disabilities (ID) has increased significantly, but the cognitive aspects together with the functional ones comparing normal aging and those with intellectual disabilities had not been previously studied. Objective: This study analyzed the cognitive and functional differences in older adults aging with ID (and with DS), compared with their peers without disabilities, in order to identify the most adapted interventions. Methodology: This study evaluated the outcome variables of MEC, Set-Test, Barthel, Lawton–Brody, and Tinetti with 247 participants: 146 without ID and 101 ID (29 with DS and 72 without DS). Results: At the cognitive level, older people with ID presented lower scores both in MEC (p < 0.01), globally and in each cognitive domain (except in short-term memory), and in verbal fluency (Set-Test) than older people without ID; however, the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia is higher in people without ID. At the functional level, there are no differences in ABDL, but there are in AIDL and Tinetti (p < 0.01), where participants without ID obtain higher scores. The most frequent pathologies in people with ID were obesity and epilepsy. Conclusions: The lower cognitive and functional performance in ID is associated with the disability itself, the low educational level, the neurocognitive underdiagnosis, and the use of poorly adapted assessment tools. The cognitive and functional results indicated the importance of interventions adapted to the characteristics of this population, in their aging process. © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Idioma: Inglés
DOI: 10.3390/su131910515
Año: 2021
Publicado en: Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 19 (2021), 10515 [14 pp]
ISSN: 2071-1050

Factor impacto JCR: 3.889 (2021)
Categ. JCR: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES rank: 57 / 128 = 0.445 (2021) - Q2 - T2
Categ. JCR: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES rank: 133 / 279 = 0.477 (2021) - Q2 - T2
Categ. JCR: GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY rank: 35 / 47 = 0.745 (2021) - Q3 - T3
Categ. JCR: GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY rank: 7 / 9 = 0.778 (2021) - Q4 - T3

Factor impacto CITESCORE: 5.0 - Social Sciences (Q1) - Engineering (Q1) - Energy (Q2) - Environmental Science (Q2)

Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 0.664 - Energy Engineering and Power Technology (Q1) - Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment (Q1) - Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (Q1) - Geography, Planning and Development (Q1)

Tipo y forma: Article (Published version)
Área (Departamento): Área Fisioterapia (Dpto. Fisiatría y Enfermería)
Área (Departamento): Área Psicolog.Evolut.Educac (Dpto. Psicología y Sociología)


Creative Commons You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.


Exportado de SIDERAL (2023-05-18-15:39:46)


Visitas y descargas

Este artículo se encuentra en las siguientes colecciones:
Articles



 Record created 2022-09-08, last modified 2023-05-19


Versión publicada:
 PDF
Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)