The relationship between the severity of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) in adults with IDDs and eating and drinking problems and nutritional status.
Severe ID means more chewing and self-feeding problems, yet weight and nutrients can look normal—so screen skills, not just the scale.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adams et al. (2024) looked at adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. They split the group by how severe the disability was: mild, moderate, severe, or profound.
For each group they checked chewing skills, drinking skills, and any nutrition-linked behavior problems. They also recorded BMI and daily nutrient intake.
What they found
Adults with severe or profound disability had far more trouble chewing and eating on their own. They also showed more behavior problems around food, like grabbing or throwing meals.
Surprise: BMI, calorie count, and vitamin intake were almost the same across all severity levels. Weight alone did not tell who needed help.
How this fits with other research
Beaulieu et al. (2013) warned that overweight adults with ID often eat very poor diets. E et al. now show that low weight or normal weight can still hide serious feeding-skill deficits. The two papers together say: screen both diet quality AND eating skills, not just the scale.
Ganz et al. (2004) found psychiatric symptoms peak in moderate ID, not severe. E et al. find feeding deficits peak in severe/profound ID. The same severity split keeps showing up across domains, so keep your assessments fine-grained.
Wilkinson et al. (1998) saw bed-bound adults with ID fracture bones even when calcium intake looked fine; vitamin D was the missing piece. E et al. add a parallel story: nutrient intake can look fine while chewing skills are the hidden deficit. Both papers push us to look past the numbers on the page.
Why it matters
If you only track weight or calories you can miss adults who choke, pocket food, or need total hand-over-hand help. Add a quick chew-and-swallow screen to every annual plan. Teach staff to record texture tolerance, bite size, and mealtime independence. These skills drive dignity, safety, and later medical bills more than BMI ever will.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a 2-minute mealtime observation to your session: note texture accepted, bites chewed, and level of prompt needed.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) experience eating, drinking and swallowing problems, such as chewing problems, choking, gagging, coughing during eating, aspiration and rumination syndrome, which may lead to poor nutritional status. This study aimed to determine the relationship between IDD levels, eating, drinking and swallowing problems and nutritional status in adults with IDDs. METHODS: The sample consisted of 71 participants (37 men and 34 women) with a mean age of 22.5 ± 7 years (range 18-60 years). Professionals classified intellectual disability as mild, moderate or severe. The Screening Tool of Feeding Problems scale was applied to the caregivers of adults with IDDs to identify eating, drinking and swallowing problems. Dietary intake was assessed using a 24-h dietary recall and a food and nutrition photograph catalogue. The researchers measured body weight, height and middle upper arm circumference. Body mass index was calculated. Four body mass index categories were determined: underweight (<18.5 kg/m2 ), normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2 ), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2 ) and obese (≥30 kg/m2 ). Chi-squared tests were used to detect the relationship between IDD levels and eating and drinking problems, and analysis of variance tests were conducted to detect the relationship between IDD levels with anthropometric measurements and dietary intake. RESULTS: Participants had mild (42.3%; n = 30), moderate (29.6%; n = 21) or severe IDD (28.2%; n = 20). They were underweight (12.7%; n = 9), normal weight (59.2%; n = 42) or overweight and/or obese (28.2%; n = 20). Participants with severe IDD had significantly higher Screening Tool of Feeding Problems 'nutrition-related behaviour' and 'eating and drinking skill deficit problem' sub-scale scores than those with mild IDD. However, the groups had no significant difference in 'food refusal and selectivity' sub-scale scores. Participants with severe IDD also had anorexia prevalence similar to those with mild IDD. The groups did not significantly differ in anthropometric measurements, daily energy intake and macronutrient and micronutrient intake. CONCLUSIONS: While adults with severe IDD had more eating and drinking skill deficits (e.g. chewing problems and independent eating difficulties) and nutrition-related behaviour problems than those with mild IDD, the eating, drinking and swallowing problems, which may critically affect their food intake, were similar to adults with mild IDD. The anthropometric measurements and energy and nutrient intakes of adults with severe IDD were not significantly different from those with mild IDD consistently. Findings indicate that nutritional deficiencies and nutritional behaviour problems may be avoidable in adults with IDDs.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2024 · doi:10.1111/jir.13114