4.3 Article

Trends in the prevalence of intellectual disability among children in Taiwan

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY RESEARCH
Volume 67, Issue 12, Pages 1227-1236

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jir.12998

Keywords

intellectual disability; prevalence; severity; sex; Taiwan; trend

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prevalence of intellectual disability among children in Taiwan increased from 2000 to 2011, primarily due to an increase in mild intellectual disability. Boys had a higher prevalence of intellectual disability and were more likely to have mild intellectual disability.
BackgroundIntellectual disability (ID) is a major developmental disability. However, data on changes in the prevalence over time at the national level are limited. MethodUsing data from the national disability registry, we conducted an ecological study to evaluate the time trends of ID among children in Taiwan. We calculated the prevalence of ID by age, sex and severity, from 2000 to 2011, and assessed the time trends. ResultsDuring the study period, the overall prevalence of ID in children aged 3-17 years increased from 3.60 to 5.91 per 1000 (beta = 0.22, P < 0.001, r(2) = 0.97). The prevalence of mild ID (MID, intelligence quotient: 50-69) increased from 1.30 to 3.60 per 1000 (beta = 0.21, P < 0.001, r(2) = 0.98). However, the prevalence of severe ID (SID, intelligence quotient: <50) was relatively constant, between 2.22 and 2.38 per 1000 (beta = 0.01, P = 0.076, r(2) = 0.96). Boys had a higher prevalence than girls, and the average boy-to-girl prevalence ratio was 1.42 for MID and 1.31 for SID. The boy-to-girl prevalence ratios of MID and SID decreased over time (beta = -0.01, P < 0.001, r(2) = 0.99 for MID; beta = -0.01, P < 0.001, r(2) = 1.00 for SID). ConclusionThe prevalence of ID in Taiwanese children increased from 2000 to 2011 and was largely attributable to increases in MID. Boys had a higher prevalence of ID and were more likely to have MID.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available