Ageing in adults with Down's syndrome in institutionally based and community-based residences.
Adults with Down syndrome lose skills faster in institutions and when sensory loss goes untreated.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team looked at the adults with Down syndrome. Half lived in institutions. Half lived in small community homes.
They tested memory, talking skills, and daily tasks like dressing and cooking. They also noted vision and hearing problems.
The adults ranged from 30 to 65 years old. Each person was matched with a control adult of the same age without Down syndrome.
What they found
Every extra decade of age brought steeper drops in memory and daily skills for the Down syndrome group.
The biggest gap showed up in institutions. Those adults scored far lower than their peers in community homes.
Vision or hearing loss doubled the drop. Adults with both sensory problems had the worst scores.
How this fits with other research
Vakil et al. (2012) extends these findings. They tracked the same age range and also saw sharp decline, but focused on balance and strength instead of memory.
Pfeiffer et al. (1995) backs the setting effect. Their 23-year follow-up of mixed-ID adults found half declined, especially those in institutions.
The pattern is clear across studies: place matters. Community homes slow the slide better than large facilities.
Why it matters
If you serve adults with Down syndrome, screen for sensory loss every year. Push for community placements when possible. Simple aids like glasses, hearing aids, and brighter lighting can keep skills longer.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →ref_1
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Seventy-one subjects with Down's syndrome (DS), between the ages of 29 and 68 years, and 46 matched controls (without DS) were examined for intelligence, memory (short- and long-term memory, and spatial and temporal orientation), communication (receptive, expressive and written language) and daily living skills (personal, domestic and community daily living skills). All subjects were screened on hearing and visual functions, thyroid functions, depression and dementia. DS-subjects and controls were matched on chronological age, mental age, living conditions and male/female ratio. Comparisons were made between five subgroups (1) non-demented institutionalized subjects with DS (DSi-group; n = 35); (2) non-demented institutionalized controls without DS (Ci-group; n = 22); (3) demented institutionalized subjects with DS (n = 10); (4) non-demented subjects with DS living in group homes (DSg; n = 26); and (5) non-demented controls without DS living in group homes (Cg; n = 24). Institutionalized and non-institutionalized subjects, as well as demented and non-demented subjects differed significantly on all functions measured. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of age and sensory deficits on adaptive and cognitive functioning. In DSg subjects, significant associations were found between age and mental age, and between age and performances on written language. In (non-demented) DSi subjects, significant relations were found between age and memory functions observed in daily circumstances. Moreover, in the (non-demented) DSi elderly, visual impairment was significantly related to depressed performance on daily living skills. No age effects were seen in control subjects. Infirmities of old age like dementia and sensory deficits were far more common in people with DS than in controls. Psychiatric and diagnostic aspects of clinical depression and dementia were emphasized in particular.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 1995 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00544.x