Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-pf7kn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T10:52:35.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Internet Access Survey for People With Learning Disabilities in Wandsworth, London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Haramrit Sohal
Affiliation:
South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Ayodele Peters
Affiliation:
South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Anna Sri
Affiliation:
South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust, London, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: Research from the 2000s onward reveals significant digital access disparities for people with learning disabilities (LD). These individuals often have lower rates of computer ownership, internet use, and digital skills compared with their non-disabled peers. The situation is more pronounced for those with co-existing mental health conditions, leaving them further excluded from digital rights. Few studies have explored the reasons behind this digital divide or proposed solutions to improve internet access.

The study was aimed at gaining insight into the internet access and use of social media in patients with a Learning Disability in Wandsworth.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving fifty clients from the Psychiatry caseload of Wandsworth Mental Health and Learning Disability Team. The clients, selected randomly, had a range of intellectual disabilities and lived in different settings (e.g. with parents, independent housing with carers, or nursing homes). Data was gathered via an accessible paper survey between August 2024 and February 2025. Doctors filled out the forms in the presence of the clients or their carers to reduce recall bias. The survey collected demographic data and explored internet access, usage, and social media habits. It also included questions on internet safety and barriers to use. Chi-square tests were used to analyse relationships between variables.

Results: The study found that a significant number of clients had internet access. Most clients used the internet to watch videos on platforms like YouTube or Google, while some played online games. A smaller number used social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. However, many clients had limited understanding on cyber-safety and were unaware of accessibility features for those with visual or hearing impairments. Concerns were raised for a small group of clients who had shared personal or vulnerable information on social media. Thematic analysis identified four main barriers to digital inclusion: lack of access to devices, insufficient support from carers, lack of training, and physical/cognitive challenges.

Conclusion: The growing use of social media among individuals with intellectual disabilities highlights the need for targeted internet safety training. Without proper guidance, clients are at risk of online exploitation. In response, a one-day workshop on internet safety was organized with input from speech therapists, psychologists, and IT professionals. Feedback from participants will help assess the effectiveness of the training. The goal is to expand the study to other teams within Southwest London Trust and explore more objective data, such as device usage logs, alongside self-reported information.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.