Third‐wave therapies and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Third-wave therapies appear to produce positive outcomes for people without intellectual disabilities. This systematic review aimed to establish which third-wave therapies have been adapted for adults with intellectual disabilities and whether they produced positive outcomes. METHOD: Four databases were searched systematically (PsycINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE and PubMed), yielding 1,395 results. Twenty studies (N = 109) met the present review's inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Included studies used mindfulness-based approaches, dialectical behaviour therapy, compassion focused therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy. Due to considerable heterogeneity in the designs and outcome measures used, a meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicated that third-wave therapies improved mental health symptoms for some and improved challenging/offending behaviour, smoking and mindfulness/acceptance skills for most. These findings must be interpreted with caution due to the low methodological quality of included studies. Future research should build on the current evidence base, using scientifically rigorous designs and standardized measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".