Ramsden Ruby, Reeves Emily, Whitwell Eve, Lane Nicola, Fletcher Helen K
Oxford Institute for Clinical Psychology Research and Training, University of Oxford, UK.
Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
J Intellect Disabil. 2025 Jun;29(2):469-499. doi: 10.1177/17446295241289734. Epub 2024 Oct 4.
ObjectiveThe current mixed-methods systematic review evaluated available literature to find out which attachment-based interventions have been implemented for people with intellectual disability and whether they are efficacious and acceptable.MethodsFive databases were searched (in July 2023 and April 2024), using terms related to intellectual disability and attachment-based interventions. The search yielded 793 papers; 15 papers (13 studies) met inclusion criteria. Relevant data was extracted from each study. Paper quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesised in an integrative review.ResultsOf the included studies, 7 had people with intellectual disability as participants and 6 had their caregivers. Interventions included education, psychotherapy, technology assisted therapy, video interaction guidance/feedback and circle of security. Research methods varied.ConclusionsEvidence for efficacy and acceptability of interventions was mixed but promising. Most studies had limited generalisability. Therefore, further research is required. Pre-registration with PROSPERO [351287].
目的
当前的混合方法系统评价对现有文献进行了评估,以查明哪些基于依恋的干预措施已应用于智障人士,以及这些措施是否有效且可接受。
方法
(于2023年7月和2024年4月)检索了五个数据库,使用了与智障和基于依恋的干预措施相关的术语。检索共得到793篇论文;15篇论文(13项研究)符合纳入标准。从每项研究中提取相关数据。使用混合方法评估工具对论文质量进行评估。研究结果在综合评价中进行了综合。
结果
在所纳入的研究中,7项研究以智障人士为参与者,6项研究以他们的照顾者为参与者。干预措施包括教育、心理治疗、技术辅助治疗、视频互动指导/反馈和安全圈。研究方法各不相同。
结论
干预措施有效性和可接受性的证据参差不齐,但很有前景。大多数研究的可推广性有限。因此,需要进一步研究。已在PROSPERO进行预注册[351287]。