Table 2.
Studies of interventions for individuals with Down syndrome
| Variable | Vogl and Rapp [30], 2011 | Horovitz et al. [31], 2010 | Devenny et al. [32], 2002 | Temple et al. [33], 2001 | Bowman [34], 1996 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 1 female with DS and AD | 1 male with DS, AD, and anxiety disorder | 160 individuals with ID | 35 individuals with DS | 1 male with DS and AD |
| EG: 19 with DS and AD | EG: 9 with AD and 8 suspected of having AD | ||||
| CGl: 7 5 with D S but without AD | |||||
| CG2: 66 with ID but with no DS or AD | CG:18 without AD | ||||
| Time to diagnosis of dementia | ≈3 years (regarding the diagnostic method) | No data | No data | 6 months | No data |
| Diagnostic method | No data | No data | DSDS and ICD-10 | No data | No data |
| Age, years | 52 | 53 | >30 | 29-67 | 45 |
| Degree of disability | IQ of 50 two years before diagnosis | Severe ID | Mild to moderate ID | Mild to severe ID | IQ of 32 at 28 years of age |
| Level of education | No data | No data | No data | No schooling in 14%; at least some high school in 86% | No data |
| Occupation | Daily visits to an ATE facility | Training program offered by the institution | No data | Never employed, 9%; at least one formal job, 91% | No data |
| Institutionalisation/ duration of institutionalisation | No data | Yes/43 years | No data | Yes (in 31%)/no data | Yes/30 years |
| Cognitive/behavioural problem on which the intervention was focused | Loitering and theft | Non-compliance and inappropriate, sexualised behaviour | Memory deficit | General protective factors/ stimulation | Elopement |
| Type of study | Case report | Case report | Non-randomised controlled study | Retrospective controlled study | Case report |
| Format | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual |
| Treatment | Reinforcement and extinction Intervention: | ||||
| 5 times a week (8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.) | Reinforcement Intervention: 5 times a week (in the afternoon) | Memory training with a CRT (3 trials, 12 items presented, each accompanied by a verbal cue) | No | Reinforcement | |
| Analysis | Behavioural analysis | Behavioural analysis | Diagnostic | Retrospective analysis of level of education, institutionalisation, recreational activities, cognitive functioning, and employment | Behavioural analysis |
| Control group | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Study duration | Baseline evaluation, ll days; intervention, ll days | Baseline evaluation, 13 weeks; intervention, 17 weeks | One testing phase consisting of three trials, once a year | Retrospective analysis of 6–36 months | Baseline, 1 month; study duration, 5 months |
| Follow-up | At 2 and 3 months | At 1 month | At 14 years (in comparison with the year before diagnosis) | None | At 6 months |
| Outcome measure(s) | Maladaptive behaviour as recorded by the local staff | Maladaptive behaviour, as recorded by the local staff, and the FAI and QABF scale scores | CRT scores | Results on neuropsychological tests, interview with an informant, and the DSDS | Maladaptive behaviour, as recorded by the local staff |
| Results | 100% reduction in the target behaviour | Reduction in the target behaviour after the intervention (by 61.11%) and at follow-up (by 85.22%) | No significant learning between tests in the individuals with DS and AD (F1,89 = 28.79; p < 0.001 vs. those with DS without dementia); borderline results in individuals at a mild or pre-clinical stage of decline | Better cognitive functioning predicted less decline and a lower risk of AD (p = 0.01) | Target behaviour re-emerged 4 months after being extinguished |
ID = Intellectual disability; IQ = intelligence quotient; DSDS = Dementia Scale for Down Syndrome; ICD-10 = International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision; FAI = Functional Assessment Interview; QABF = Questions About Behavioural Function; ATE = alternative to employment; EG = experimental group; CG = control group.