Attitude to medication of parents/primary carers of people with intellectual disability.

Lindsay et al. (2004) gave a short survey to two groups: parents and paid carers of people with intellectual disability. They asked how safe, helpful, and necessary the person’s medicines seemed. The team then compared the two groups’ answers.

The survey looked at all kinds of medication, not only psychotropics. It was done in the United Kingdom.

Parents were four times more likely than paid carers to rate medication negatively. Paid carers felt more positive about the benefits and fewer worries about side effects.

Aman et al. (1987) asked residential staff the same kind of questions years earlier. That study found 85% of staff felt their training on psychotropic meds was poor. The new data show the worry is still alive, but now strongest among parents.

Erickson et al. (2016) interviewed caregivers again and listed real-world problems: prescribers who don’t know agency rules, missing records, and little follow-up. These concrete barriers help explain why parents in the 2004 survey felt so negative.

Erickson (2023) adds another piece: family carers rely mostly on the prescription label for information. When the label is the only guide, fear and doubt grow. Together the three surveys trace a clear line: poor information leads to poor attitudes.

If you write behaviour plans for people with ID, you will meet parents who distrust medication. Use the 2016 barrier list to show you understand their pain points. Offer plain-language med reviews, invite pharmacists to team meetings, and teach parents how to check reliable online sources. These small steps can turn scepticism into partnership and keep behaviour analytic options on the table.