Evenhuis H, van Splunder J, Vink M, Weerdenburg C, van Zanten B, Stilma J
Chair of Intellectual Disability Medicine, Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
J Intellect Disabil Res. 2004 Nov;48(Pt 8):708-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2003.00562.x.
A population-based epidemiological study on visual and hearing impairment was planned in a random sample of 2100 clients, drawn from a base population of 9012 users of Dutch residential and day-care intellectual disability (ID) services with the whole range of IDs. Stratification was applied for age 50 years and over and Down syndrome. Visual and hearing functions were assessed according to a standardized protocol, in cooperation with regular ophthalmologists and regional audiological centres. Anticipated obstacles in sample collection, random inclusion, informed consent, expertise of investigators, time and costs were eliminated by a careful preparation. However, inclusion and participation were incomplete.
In a descriptive retrospective design, we collected data from our study files on inclusion and participation as well as reasons for non-participation, to identify unanticipated obstacles for this kind of research.
Consent was obtained for 1660 clients, and 1598 clients participated in the data collection (76% of intended sample of 2100). Inclusion and participation rates were especially lower in community-based care organizations, resulting in unintentional skewing of the sample towards more severe levels of ID. Complete and reliable data to diagnose visual impairment were obtained for 1358/1598 (85%) and to diagnose hearing impairment for 1237/1598 participants (77%). Unanticipated obstacles had to do with the quality of coordination within care organizations, with characteristics of screening methods, and with collaboration with the regular health care system. Assessments of visual function were more easy to organize than were those of hearing. Based on our current experience, practical recommendations are given for future multicentre research, especially in community-based settings.
计划对2100名客户进行基于人群的视力和听力障碍流行病学研究,这些客户是从9012名荷兰智力残疾(ID)寄宿和日托服务使用者的基础人群中随机抽取的,涵盖了各种类型的ID。按年龄50岁及以上和唐氏综合征进行分层。与普通眼科医生和地区听力中心合作,根据标准化方案评估视力和听力功能。通过精心准备消除了样本收集、随机纳入、知情同意、研究人员专业知识、时间和成本方面预期的障碍。然而,纳入和参与并不完整。
在描述性回顾性设计中,我们从研究档案中收集了关于纳入和参与情况以及未参与原因的数据,以确定此类研究中未预料到的障碍。
1660名客户获得了同意,1598名客户参与了数据收集(占预期样本2100名的76%)。基于社区的护理组织中的纳入率和参与率尤其较低,导致样本无意中偏向更严重程度的ID。1358/1598名参与者(85%)获得了用于诊断视力障碍的完整且可靠的数据,1237/1598名参与者(77%)获得了用于诊断听力障碍的数据。未预料到的障碍与护理组织内部的协调质量、筛查方法的特点以及与常规医疗保健系统的合作有关。视力功能评估比听力评估更容易组织。根据我们目前的经验,针对未来的多中心研究,特别是在基于社区的环境中,给出了实际建议。