Abuse prevention and safeguarding for people with intellectual disability is the coordinated work of reducing exposure to exploitation, violence, neglect, and coercion; making concerns possible to communicate; responding promptly and fairly; and restoring safety, choice, health, and social participation after harm. Effective safeguarding operates across relationships, services, organizations, and legal systems. It gives the person practical access to rights and protection while respecting their preferences, communication methods, and decision-making authority.
A safeguard is meaningful when a person can recognize an unsafe situation, reach an independent and trusted listener, describe what happened in a usable communication format, obtain protection without retaliation, and participate in decisions about what follows. Where abuse is suspected or disclosed, immediate safety, medical needs, accurate documentation, and local reporting duties take priority. A person in immediate danger needs local emergency services and a safe location; serious suspected sexual assault warrants prompt access to specialist health and forensic care.
What Safeguarding Means in Intellectual Disability
Intellectual disability involves significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior originating during development. Adaptive skills include conceptual, social, and practical abilities; profiles differ considerably between individuals. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities emphasizes strengths, cultural and linguistic context, and personalized supports. This matters for safeguarding because understanding social pressure, arranging transport, using a telephone, interpreting a contract, or describing a disturbing event may require different accommodations in different people. An IQ score alone cannot establish vulnerability, credibility, consent, or a person's ability to seek help.
Safeguarding has preventive, protective, and restorative functions. Prevention reduces opportunities for abuse and the concentration of unchecked power. Protection means identifying and responding to immediate or emerging concerns. Restoration includes medical care, psychological support, access to justice, rebuilding trusted relationships, and changes to an unsafe service environment. A policy that records incidents but leaves the person dependent on the alleged perpetrator fails the practical test of protection.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 16, establishes freedom from exploitation, violence, and abuse as a disability-rights obligation. Its scope includes protection within and outside the home, accessible information, appropriate assistance, independent monitoring, and recovery support. These requirements supply an ethical and rights-based benchmark, while enforceable reporting procedures and legal definitions differ between jurisdictions.
Types of Abuse, Exploitation, and Neglect
Physical abuse includes hitting, pushing, inappropriate force, painful handling, and intentionally harmful restraint. Sexual abuse encompasses nonconsensual contact, coercion, unwanted exposure, exploitation, and sexual acts occurring when valid consent is absent. Emotional abuse includes threats, humiliation, intimidation, isolation, and persistent verbal degradation. Financial exploitation may involve taking money, manipulating benefits, pressuring someone to sign documents, controlling accounts, or using an individual's property without valid permission.
Neglect includes failures to provide agreed and necessary food, shelter, hygiene support, medication access, health care, mobility assistance, communication equipment, and reasonable safety measures. Organizational abuse arises when routine practices—such as excessive restrictions, normalized disrespect, unsafe staffing, isolation, or the suppression of complaints—cause or permit harm. Digital exploitation can involve impersonation, unwanted sexual images, blackmail, financial fraud, coercive messaging, or the unauthorized circulation of personal information.
Intimate-partner abuse and coercive control can affect people with intellectual disability in dating, marriage, cohabitation, and relationships outside formal care settings. Dependency on a partner for transportation, housing, medication, or communication may make it especially difficult to leave. Staff, family members, intimate partners, acquaintances, peers, and strangers can all perpetrate harm. Systems should examine concrete acts and power arrangements rather than presume that danger comes from a single category of person. The NICE safeguarding guideline NG189 specifically considers individual, interpersonal, and organizational indicators in residential care.
What Research Shows About Risk
Prevalence and the Limits of Available Numbers
The overall direction of the evidence is established: people with disabilities experience elevated exposure to several forms of violence. A 2012 systematic review in The Lancet found greater pooled odds of recent violence among adults with intellectual impairments than among adults without disabilities. Its pooled crude odds ratio was 1.60, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.05 to 2.45, while the authors emphasized substantial methodological uncertainty and gaps across regions. It examined past-year violence rather than lifetime risk. See Hughes and colleagues (2012)61851-5).
A meta-analysis specifically addressing sexual abuse during adulthood among people with intellectual disability estimated a pooled prevalence of 32.9%, with a 95% confidence interval of 22.7% to 43.0%. This figure is often summarized as approximately one in three, but its studies were extremely heterogeneous (I² approximately 99.8%), covered different definitions and ascertainment methods, and included clinical samples. It should not be used as a universal probability for an individual or as the estimated current rate in every country, age group, or setting. See Tomsa and colleagues (2021).
Children also require explicit attention. An updated synthesis of 98 studies found a pooled prevalence of violence of 31.7% among children with disabilities and approximately double the odds relative to children without disabilities. That review considered multiple disability categories and therefore cannot be interpreted as an intellectual-disability-specific rate. See Fang and colleagues (2022)00033-5).
The CDC's national disability-and-violence summary likewise reports increased exposure to sexual violence and intimate-partner violence among adults with disabilities. Its disability classification is broader than intellectual disability, and its survey excludes some residential and institutional populations. These definitional boundaries matter when comparing estimates.
Why Risks Accumulate
Exposure is shaped by the interaction of individual communication needs with social and environmental conditions. Potential pathways include dependence on one caregiver, limited private contact with outsiders, barriers to accessible information, lack of sexual-health education, social isolation, discrimination, constrained housing options, coercive relationships, and organizations in which complaints can be suppressed. Difficulty describing an event may delay detection; it is never a justification for doubting a disclosure. A review spanning childhood through older age describes gaps in both disability-specific and violence-specific professional knowledge and recommends more coordinated recognition and prevention systems. See Starke, Larsson, and Punzi (2025).
Risk is never an inherent moral property of intellectual disability. People with intellectual disability sustain reciprocal relationships, express preferences, make meaningful decisions, and lead safe community lives when access and supports are effective. For prevention, the practical question is which situations create unaccountable power or interrupt access to protection, and how those circumstances can be changed.
Recognizing Warning Signs Without Treating Them as Proof
A sudden change from an individual's usual behavior may be a reason to ask questions. Possible signals include fear of a particular person or place, withdrawal, changes in sleep or appetite, distress during personal care, new avoidance of transportation or activities, unexplained injuries, recurrent genital pain or infection, missing money, unexpected debt, damaged assistive devices, or an abrupt loss of contact with friends. Some people show increased aggression, self-injury, refusal, silence, regression, or changes in communication.
These observations have many possible explanations. Pain, medication effects, seizures, sleep disruption, grief, depression, changes in routine, sensory distress, and coercion can overlap. A sign establishes the need for careful, person-centered assessment, not a diagnosis of abuse or identification of a perpetrator. Conversely, the absence of visible injury or dramatic behavioral change provides no reliable assurance that abuse did not occur. NICE explicitly warns that behavioral and emotional indicators should be evaluated for possible abuse even when disability-related explanations appear available (NG189).
Professionals should compare current functioning with the person's own baseline, document what was observed without speculative labels, and seek medical assessment where indicated. A clinician evaluating new self-injury must consider immediate injury risk, medical causes, psychiatric symptoms, environmental triggers, and possible victimization. For more on this broader diagnostic problem, see Diagnostic Overshadowing in Intellectual Disability: How Conditions Are Missed.
Communication Access Is a Core Protective Measure
Safeguarding procedures often assume that a person can understand abstract questions, narrate events chronologically, read written warnings, use a hotline, and answer rapidly. Such assumptions can make a nominal reporting system inaccessible. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's clinical guidance emphasizes individualized communication assessment and support.
Accessible safeguarding uses familiar words and short sentences; allows sufficient response time; checks understanding without imposing an expected answer; offers pictures, symbols, writing, gestures, or augmentative and alternative communication; and provides a communication partner who is independent of any alleged perpetrator. Privacy matters: discussing abuse through the same caregiver who controls the person's daily access can compromise safety. A device or communication board should remain available during appointments, interviews, hospital transfers, and emergency accommodation.
People may disclose gradually, through partial statements, drawings, patterns of behavior, or repeated attempts to avoid someone. An initial listener should remain calm, record the person's own words or symbols accurately, avoid leading questions, and refrain from conducting an amateur forensic interview. The goal is to establish immediate needs and trigger qualified assessment while preserving the integrity of later investigations. A specialist interviewer should adapt the process to the individual's expressive and receptive abilities and follow local forensic standards.
Responding to a Disclosure or Suspected Abuse
Safety, Listening, and Immediate Medical Needs
An appropriate first response acknowledges the communication, checks immediate danger, and determines whether urgent medical attention is needed. Useful simple prompts can include “Are you safe now?” and “What would help you feel safe?” Ask only what is necessary for immediate protection; do not repeatedly test or challenge the account. Explain who needs to know, what may happen next, and how the person can take part. Avoid promising absolute secrecy because some circumstances create mandatory reporting or emergency duties.
If sexual assault is suspected, obtain timely specialist medical assessment where available. The service can assess injury, pregnancy risk where relevant, sexually transmitted infection exposure, emergency contraception, prophylaxis, and forensic options according to the person's age, consent, clinical presentation, and local protocols. Preserve potentially relevant evidence as appropriate without delaying necessary care. Do not pressure a person into an examination or disclose intimate details more widely than required.
For institutional care, NICE NG189 advises immediate safety measures, objective recording, appropriate escalation, and avoiding an informal investigation that could compromise a criminal inquiry. These recommendations reflect English care-home arrangements and require adaptation to the legal and service structure of other locations.
Documentation and Reporting
Record the date and time, observable facts, the exact words or communication method used, relevant injuries or circumstances, the people present, and actions taken. Distinguish direct observation from secondhand information, inference, and a person's own report. Follow local requirements for reporting suspected child abuse, adult safeguarding concerns, workplace misconduct, and suspected crimes. Reporting channels should remain accessible outside the provider's management hierarchy and include a route when a manager or safeguarding lead may be implicated.
Adults have privacy and participation rights. Explain information-sharing decisions in an accessible form, seek the person's views, and limit disclosure to people with a legitimate protection or investigative role. In urgent circumstances, legal duties or immediate danger may justify action even when a person does not request it. These determinations depend on jurisdiction, decision-specific capacity, and the facts of the situation. They should be documented and reviewed rather than treated as a blanket consequence of an intellectual-disability diagnosis.
Protection After the First Report
An incident response remains incomplete until risks are managed. Depending on the situation, steps may include separating the alleged perpetrator from the person at risk, arranging independent advocacy, securing alternate support staff, providing safe transportation, protecting communications and money, planning follow-up medical care, and monitoring for retaliation. Institutional responses must also consider other potentially affected residents or service users.
Every plan needs identified responsibilities, a review date, a confidential pathway for additional disclosures, and the person's preferred means of contact. The person should be told what has happened with their report insofar as disclosure is lawful and safe. When immediate harm is suspected, seek local emergency services; when the threat is ongoing but not immediate, use a qualified safeguarding authority, adult or child protective service, health professional, or appropriate police channel.
Consent, Capacity, Sexual Autonomy, and Coercion
Consent is specific to the act, voluntary, informed to the extent required by the applicable law, and able to be withdrawn. Intellectual disability alone does not determine a person's legal or functional capacity to consent. Capacity assessment is decision- and context-specific, and support should be provided before concluding that a person cannot make a particular decision. The NICE decision-making and mental-capacity guideline NG108 expresses these principles within the legal framework of England and Wales.
A person may understand a simple choice when information is presented accessibly but struggle with a complex financial arrangement; this difference cannot be collapsed into a global judgment. Coercion may take the form of threatened loss of housing, affection, personal assistance, transportation, or employment. Compliance under such pressure must not be mistaken for freely given agreement. A supportive response examines the relationship, power imbalance, communication opportunities, and available alternatives.
Safeguarding and autonomy reinforce each other when a person has accessible sex education, information about boundaries, privacy, relationships, and independent ways to say yes or no and to request assistance. Overprotective restrictions can produce secrecy, dependency, and exclusion. Sexuality and relationship rights deserve active support, along with practical risk recognition and confidential access to services.
Organizational Safeguarding That Works in Everyday Practice
Recruitment, Supervision, and Independent Accountability
Organizations need clear codes of conduct, recruitment and background checks where authorized, safeguarding education, supervision, whistleblower protections, incident escalation, and external oversight. Policies should address private communication, physical and chemical restraint, medication administration, personal care, money management, visitors, transport, and digital access. Staff must know how to respond to concerns involving colleagues and managers.
A systematic review of 48 studies of abuse detection and prevention in services for adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities identified staff training, supervision, and monitoring as relevant preventive measures, but concluded that study quality limited confidence in their effects. Therefore, policies should be treated as necessary organizational safeguards whose effectiveness needs actual monitoring, not as proven protection merely because a training session occurred. See Collins and Murphy (2022).
Monitoring should examine whether people can complain privately, whether reports reach independent authorities, whether investigations are timely, whether repeat allegations are detected, whether staffing problems are corrected, and whether residents feel safer. A decline in reports after restrictive management changes might reflect reduced trust or blocked access rather than less abuse. Measures should include confidential feedback directly from people with intellectual disability, adapted to their communication needs.
Restrictive Practices and the Risk of Institutional Harm
Restraint, seclusion, threats, and coercive medication can harm dignity, health, and trust. Where a restrictive intervention is permitted under local law and a genuine immediate safety need, it requires clinical justification, proportionality, oversight, documentation, and periodic review. The NICE guideline on challenging behavior in people with learning disabilities emphasizes assessment of health, trauma, environmental conditions, and abuse or neglect, with prevention and individualized support rather than punishment.
People should have regular access to visitors, chosen advocates, health professionals, accessible complaints procedures, and independent community contacts. Settings built around maximum isolation or one-person control create structural vulnerabilities even when individual staff members are well intentioned. Supporting communication and meaningful daily choice offers a protective pathway and a quality-of-life goal.
Prevention Education Across the Life Span
Children, adolescents, and adults benefit from developmentally appropriate education about private and public spaces, bodily autonomy, safe and unsafe requests, recognizing coercion, digital boundaries, and identifying multiple trusted adults. Education should use everyday scenarios, repetition, demonstration, and communication supports that fit the individual. A person may learn to identify unwanted contact yet still be unable to leave an unsafe environment or access independent assistance, so education cannot substitute for accountable service design.
Evidence on program effectiveness requires careful interpretation. A systematic review of prevention and intervention programs targeting sexual abuse in people with mild intellectual disability found 12 studies, all rated methodologically weak; effectiveness remained unclear in most and ineffective in two. See Stobbe and colleagues (2021). Broader research also finds limited high-quality evidence that violence-prevention programs reliably reduce victimization across disability groups, despite plausible gains in knowledge or self-protective skills (Mikton, Maguire, and Shakespeare, 2014).
Programs therefore need evaluation against meaningful outcomes: actual safety, disclosure access, recurrent incidents, quality of response, confidence, choice, and well-being. Improvement in a classroom quiz, role-play, or hypothetical scenario does not by itself demonstrate reduced violence. Safety responsibilities must remain with families, institutions, employers, regulators, and justice systems rather than being assigned to the individual who may be targeted.
Families, Partners, and Support Networks
Families can strengthen protection through respectful listening, support for friendships, privacy, access to community activities, financial transparency, and introductions to independent advocates. It is helpful to agree on several routes for obtaining help, including outside the family and outside paid care. Education about personal boundaries should extend to adults and support workers so that the person's rights are reinforced consistently.
Caregiver fatigue, resource constraints, and conflict can raise support needs, but these issues never excuse abuse. Families should be able to seek respite, mental health care, accessible training, and crisis support before stress becomes an unsafe situation. Allegations involving a relative or caregiver require an independent response; a family's involvement should not automatically replace the individual's voice.
For children, safeguarding includes age-appropriate child protection procedures, school and health staff awareness, communication accessibility, and safe participation by the child in decisions. In adulthood, attention expands to employment, shared housing, intimate relationships, transport, online platforms, and financial services. Older adults may face additional dependence associated with health changes and changes in caregiving arrangements. Throughout life, the individual should have access to people and institutions not controlled by the suspected abuser.
Financial and Digital Safeguarding
People with intellectual disability may face scams, identity theft, fraudulent contracts, benefit diversion, coercive debt, and pressure to share account credentials. Practical safeguards include accessible explanations, transaction alerts chosen by the person, confidential financial advice, separate oversight of paid helpers, limits on unnecessary access, and transparent records of expenditures. The goal is supported control of finances, not automatic removal of a person's financial agency.
Digital safety includes privacy settings, ways to block unwanted contacts, independent help with threatening messages, protection of intimate images, and safe access to reporting tools. Platforms and services should provide accessible language and reporting interfaces. Digital abuse can intersect with intimate-partner violence when a perpetrator controls the person's device, passwords, location sharing, or access to friends. A safety plan must consider whether messages or browsing activity are being monitored.
Trauma-Responsive Recovery and Mental Health
Abuse may affect sleep, trust, emotional regulation, concentration, physical health, participation, and relationships. People can experience fear, depression, post-traumatic symptoms, dissociation, or distress communicated through behavior. These responses are variable, and no particular symptom pattern reliably confirms or excludes abuse. Trauma may coexist with psychiatric, neurological, communication, or medical conditions, requiring appropriately adapted multidisciplinary assessment.
Trauma-informed practice creates physical and emotional safety, transparent explanations, meaningful choice, collaboration, attention to cultural context, and continuity of trusted support. These principles are outlined by SAMHSA. A trauma-responsive assessment avoids repeated unnecessary retelling, offers a predictable pace, respects communication preferences, and invites the person to identify goals for recovery.
Psychological treatments may require adapted language, visual materials, more time, concrete examples, and involvement of chosen supporters where appropriate. The evidence base for specific trauma therapies in intellectual disability is considerably smaller than in general adult populations, so treatment should be individualized and outcomes measured. Psychological care also requires access to pain management, sleep treatment, medical services, advocacy, stable housing, and restored participation. For related clinical recognition, see Mental Health Problems in People With Intellectual Disability: Recognition and Care.
Safeguarding Assessment and Quality Indicators
There is no single cognitive test, behavioral checklist, or numerical score that establishes whether abuse occurred. A sound assessment combines the person's account, accessible communication, injury and health findings, independent documentation, contextual information, and qualified investigative procedures where appropriate. Screening for possible victimization can flag concerns; it does not establish a criminal finding, a clinical diagnosis, or a person's credibility.
An individual safety review should examine where the person feels safe, how they ask for help, whether they can access money and communication, whether a caregiver can monitor their conversations, whether there are credible alternatives to an unsafe living arrangement, and which people they trust. Each question must be adapted to avoid suggestion and to support meaningful understanding.
At the organizational level, indicators should include successful use of accessible reporting channels, timely referral and follow-up, investigations independent of the accused, reduced recurrence, protection from retaliation, restrictive-practice reviews, participation in safety decisions, and reports of felt safety. Data need careful interpretation: more disclosures can reflect improved access and trust, and lower recorded incident counts can conceal underreporting. External audits, participatory evaluations, and independent advocacy help distinguish documentation from lived protection.
What Is Established and What Remains Uncertain
Established findings include increased victimization risk in people with disabilities as groups, the importance of rights-based protection, and the need to consider abuse when new distress or unexplained changes emerge. Strong professional guidance supports immediate safety actions, accessible communication, independent reporting, and person-centered participation. The existence of such guidance is a normative and clinical foundation, not proof that every recommended institutional measure has been experimentally shown to prevent violence.
Limited findings concern which combinations of staff training, public education, incident surveillance, advocacy, and governance most effectively reduce new abuse among people with different support needs. Reviews report weak intervention designs, inconsistent definitions, major between-study heterogeneity, limited global representation, and undercounting of people in restrictive settings. See Collins and Murphy (2022), Mikton and colleagues (2014), and Tomsa and colleagues (2021).
Research priorities include longitudinal designs, transparent definitions of coercion and neglect, validated accessible reporting methods, evaluation of organizational reforms, survivor-led outcomes, participation of people with high support needs, and studies beyond high-income countries. People with intellectual disability should be partners in defining meaningful safety and reviewing the consequences of safeguarding interventions.
Practical Questions
Can someone with intellectual disability report abuse reliably?
Yes. Intellectual disability does not make an account inherently unreliable. Communication accessibility, memory, suggestibility, trauma, the complexity of questions, and interviewer practice can affect information quality for many witnesses. A qualified, non-leading, appropriately adapted process supports meaningful disclosure and fair investigation.
Is a sudden behavioral change evidence of abuse?
A change may signal distress and justify investigation, but it does not by itself establish abuse. Consider medical conditions, pain, medications, environmental stress, psychiatric conditions, and possible victimization together. Do not dismiss an abuse concern because an alternative explanation is available.
Who should receive a concern if the caregiver may be responsible?
Use a trusted independent professional, child or adult protective authority, police channel, healthcare service, regulator, or external safeguarding contact according to the person's age, immediate risk, and local law. Avoid routing a report solely through an individual who may have a conflict of interest. Emergency threats require emergency help.
Does an intellectual-disability diagnosis mean a person cannot consent?
No. Consent and decision-making capacity require attention to the particular decision, circumstances, available supports, coercion, and applicable law. Supported decision-making and accessible information are central to respecting autonomy while protecting against exploitation.
Can prevention classes alone stop abuse?
Education can build knowledge and communication skills, but evidence that specific classes reduce real-world victimization remains limited. Effective systems also need accessible reporting, independent accountability, safe environments, and prompt protective action.
What is the first priority following suspected serious abuse?
Ensure immediate safety and urgent healthcare as needed, listen without leading questions, document observations and exact disclosures, and follow the relevant reporting and protection procedures. Seek specialist assessment when sexual violence or serious injury is suspected. Continue support after the initial report.
Related Articles
Cluster Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities — The foundational scientific chapter on diagnosis, adaptive functioning, rights, health, and individualized support.
Communication Difficulties in Intellectual Disability: Language, Understanding, and Support — Communication access and practical support across settings.
Diagnostic Overshadowing in Intellectual Disability: How Conditions Are Missed — Recognizing clinical concerns obscured by diagnostic assumptions.
Mental Health Problems in People With Intellectual Disability: Recognition and Care — Mental health assessment and adapted care.
Autism and Intellectual Disability in Adults: Differences and Support — Distinct clinical profiles and individualized support across co-occurring conditions.
Quality of Life and Community Participation in Intellectual Disability — Outcome measurement and participation in inclusive communities.
References
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (n.d.). Defining criteria for intellectual disability. https://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Intellectual disability. ASHA Practice Portal. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/intellectual-disability/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Sexual violence and intimate partner violence among people with disabilities. https://www.cdc.gov/sexual-violence/about/sexual-violence-and-intimate-partner-violence-among-people-with-disabilities.html
Collins, J., and Murphy, G. H. (2022). Detection and prevention of abuse of adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities in care services: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 35(2), 338–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12954
Fang, Z., Cerna-Turoff, I., Zhang, C., Lu, M., Lachman, J. M., and Barlow, J. (2022). Global estimates of violence against children with disabilities: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 6(5), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00033-500033-5)
Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Jones, L., Wood, S., Bates, G., Eckley, L., McCoy, E., Mikton, C., Shakespeare, T., and Officer, A. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1621–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61851-561851-5)
Mikton, C., Maguire, H., and Shakespeare, T. (2014). A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to prevent and respond to violence against persons with disabilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(17), 3207–3226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514534530
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2015). Challenging behaviour and learning disabilities: Prevention and interventions for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges (NG11). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng11/chapter/recommendations
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2018). Decision-making and mental capacity (NG108). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng108/chapter/recommendations
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2021). Safeguarding adults in care homes (NG189). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng189/chapter/recommendations
Starke, M., Larsson, A., and Punzi, E. (2025). People with intellectual disability and their risk of exposure to violence: Identification and prevention—A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 29(3), 760–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/17446295241252472
Stobbe, K. J., Scheffers, M., van Busschbach, J. T., and Didden, R. (2021). Prevention and intervention programs targeting sexual abuse in individuals with mild intellectual disability: A systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2021.1883780
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2026). Trauma-informed approaches and programs. https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/trauma-violence/trauma-informed-approaches-programs
Tomsa, R., Gutu, S., Cojocaru, D., Gutiérrez-Bermejo, B., Flores, N., and Jenaro, C. (2021). Prevalence of sexual abuse in adults with intellectual disability: Systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1980. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041980
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 16—Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-16-freedom-from-exploitation-violence-and-abuse.html