The prevalence of sleep disorders in adults with learning disabilities: A systematic review

BackgroundPrevious research indicated a high prevalence of disordered sleep among adults with learning disabilities, however issues with design impacted findings. The current systematic review aims to: (a) present how disordered sleep and sleep disorders amongst adults with learning disabilities are described in the literature, and (b) report on the prevalence of disordered sleep and sleep disorders among adults with learning disabilities.MethodsFive databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched for articles published from 1900 to October 2021 that examined the prevalence of disordered sleep and/or sleep disorders in adults aged 18 or older with learning disabilities. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies was used to assess study quality and prevalence is described and reported as ranges. The study was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019134550).FindingsA total of 27 studies were selected. Twenty studies (n = 8043 participants) examined the prevalence of disordered sleep and identified prevalence ranging from 6.1% to 74.2% across a range of sleep parameters. Twelve studies examined sleep-related breathing disorders (n = 2558 participants) and identified prevalence which ranged from 0.5% to 100%. There was notable heterogeneity between studies in terms of quality, definition of disordered sleep, measurement of sleep, and study design.ConclusionThere was a variable prevalence of disordered sleep among people living with learning disabilities. There were problems in meaningfully synthesising results due to heterogeneity in measurement, diagnosis, study design and study quality. Based on these limitations, we suggest that future studies should seek to utilise objective, replicable and consistent measures of sleep in this population and control for physical health factors which could influence prevalence such as epilepsy and iatrogenic effects

Guiding healthier food choice: systematic comparison of four front-of-pack labelling systems and their effect on judgements of product healthiness

Different front-of-pack (FOP) labelling systems have been developed in Europe by industry and organisations concerned with health promotion. A study (n 2068) was performed to establish the extent to which inclusion of the most prevalent FOP systems--guideline daily amounts (GDA), traffic lights (TL), GDA+TL hybrid (HYB) and health logos (HL)--impact consumer perceptions of healthiness over and above the provision of a FOP basic label (BL) containing numerical nutritional information alone. The design included within- and between-subjects factors. The within-subjects factors were: food (pizzas, yogurts and biscuits), healthiness of the food (high health, medium health and low health) and the repeated measurements under BL and test FOP label conditions. The between-subjects factors were: the system (GDA, TL, GDA+TL hybrid, HL), portion size (typical portion size and a 50% reduction of a typical portion) and country (the UK, Germany, Poland and Turkey). Although the FOP systems tested did result in small improvements for objective understanding under some conditions, there was little difference between the provision of an FOP label containing basic numerical nutritional information alone or between the various systems. Thus, any structured and legible presentation of key nutrient and energy information on the FOP label is sufficient to enable consumers to detect a healthier alternative within a food category when provided with foods that have distinctly different levels of healthiness. Future research should focus on developing greater understanding of the psychological and contextual factors that impact motivation and the opportunity to use the various FOP systems in real-world shopping settings

Guiding healthier food choice: systematic comparison of four front-of-pack labelling systems and their effect on judgements of product healthiness

Different front-of-pack (FOP) labelling systems have been developed in Europe by industry and organisations concerned with health promotion. A study (n 2068) was performed to establish the extent to which inclusion of the most prevalent FOP systems--guideline daily amounts (GDA), traffic lights (TL), GDA+TL hybrid (HYB) and health logos (HL)--impact consumer perceptions of healthiness over and above the provision of a FOP basic label (BL) containing numerical nutritional information alone. The design included within- and between-subjects factors. The within-subjects factors were: food (pizzas, yogurts and biscuits), healthiness of the food (high health, medium health and low health) and the repeated measurements under BL and test FOP label conditions. The between-subjects factors were: the system (GDA, TL, GDA+TL hybrid, HL), portion size (typical portion size and a 50% reduction of a typical portion) and country (the UK, Germany, Poland and Turkey). Although the FOP systems tested did result in small improvements for objective understanding under some conditions, there was little difference between the provision of an FOP label containing basic numerical nutritional information alone or between the various systems. Thus, any structured and legible presentation of key nutrient and energy information on the FOP label is sufficient to enable consumers to detect a healthier alternative within a food category when provided with foods that have distinctly different levels of healthiness. Future research should focus on developing greater understanding of the psychological and contextual factors that impact motivation and the opportunity to use the various FOP systems in real-world shopping settings