Prevalence of intellectual disabilities in Norway: Domestic variance.

Smith et al. (2010) counted how many people with intellectual disability live in Norway. They used national registers instead of small local samples.

The team looked at every county. They split places into cities, towns, and rural areas. This let them see if ID numbers change with geography.

Prevalence was not the same across the country. Some regions showed higher rates than others. City and countryside numbers also differed.

The swings point to gaps in who gets found and who gets services, not true swings in how many people have ID.

Holden et al. (2006) did a similar head-count in one Norwegian county six years earlier. They focused on challenging behavior; E et al. widened the lens to the whole nation and added urban-rural detail. Together they form a before-and-after Norwegian picture.

Plant et al. (2007) used the same register method in the Netherlands and saw 0.7 % prevalence. Norway’s regional highs and lows wrap around that Dutch average, showing the method travels but local factors still shift the count.

Herrington (2009) found 11 % of young male UK prisoners sit in the borderline ID range. E et al. give the general-population baseline, so you can see custody rates are far above the national map. The two studies do not clash; they simply spotlight different slices of the same disability distribution.

If you write reports, place calls, or plan services, remember that ID prevalence on paper depends on who is found. A child can look rare in one county yet common next door. Use the map to question low counts where you work. Push for uniform screening and referral so kids do not vanish from the data and from help.