You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 25, Issue 1
  • Enriching outcomes for persons with intellectual disabilities: choice, individuality and collaboration are key to effective eHealth

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Learning disabilities
Enriching outcomes for persons with intellectual disabilities: choice, individuality and collaboration are key to effective eHealth
  1. Heidi Fewings,
  2. Amanda J Lee
  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull Faculty of Health and Social Care, Hull, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Amanda J Lee, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull Faculty of Health and Social Care, Hull, Humberside, UK; A.J.Lee{at}hull.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2020-103362

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Oudshoorn CEM, Frielink N, Nijs SLP, Embregts PJCM. eHealth in the support of people with mild intellectual disability in daily life: a systematic review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2019;00:1–22.

    Implications for practice and research

    • This review highlights a need for more individualised, planned and collaborative approaches when using eHealth to assist persons with mild intellectual disabilities.

    • Further research is required to tackle the significant lack of rigorous evidence on eHealth interventions for people with mild intellectual disabilities.

    Context

    eHealth can be used to support daily functioning and independence for people with intellectual disabilities.1 Yet there is a distinct lack of evidence to support how we can use services most effectively. This is most important in today’s post COVID-19 environment, as healthcare increasingly needs to embrace technology to support our most vulnerable citizens, as …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.