The application of population data linkage to capture sibling health outcomes among children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions. A scoping review

Abstract

Introduction
Siblings of children with neurodevelopmental conditions have unique experiences and challenges related to their sibling role. Some develop mental health concerns as measured by self-reported surveys or parent report. Few data are available at the population level, owing to difficulties capturing wide-scale health data for siblings. Data linkage is a technique that can facilitate such research.

Objective
To explore the application of population data linkage as a research method to capture health outcomes of siblings of children with neurodevelopmental conditions.

Inclusion criteria
Peer reviewed papers that captured health outcomes for siblings of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions using population data linkage.

Methods
JBI Scoping review methods were followed. Papers were searched within CINAHL, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science from 2000 to 2024 using search terms relating to `data linkage' `neurodevelopmental conditions' `siblings' and `health outcomes'.

Results
The final data extraction included 31 papers. The neurodevelopmental conditions of index children were autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy and developmental delay. The mean follow-up time was 31 years, and the majority of studies originated from Scandinavia. Sibling health outcomes observed were psychiatric diagnoses, self-harm and suicide, other neurodevelopmental conditions, and medical conditions such as atopic disease, cancer and obesity.

Conclusion
Data linkage can help capture sibling health outcomes quickly across large cohorts with a range of neurodevelopmental conditions. Future research could be enhanced by focusing on siblings as the primary group of interest, increased integration of genealogical data, and comparisons between diagnostic groups and severity levels. Adoption of established rigorous reporting methods will increase the replicability of this type of research, and provide a stronger evidence-base from which to inform sibling supports.

Introduction

Neurodevelopmental conditions (including intellectual disability, autism, cerebral palsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and some genetic syndromes) are usually diagnosed in childhood, and are associated with varying levels of support needs [1–3]. Siblings of children with these conditions can provide important companionship and care, sometimes having informal carer roles as children and more formal care roles as adults [4–7]. Siblings are often described as having positive character traits, and develop rich relationships as a result of growing up alongside someone with a disability [8, 9], yet some may also be at risk of poorer health outcomes compared to their peers, which may be the result of shared genetics, environmental factors, family factors, or a combination of these [10–12]. Neurocognitive difficulties, psychiatric diagnoses, and self-harm have been observed in some siblings during childhood and young adulthood [13–17].

Health outcomes for siblings are often reported at the individual level, using interviews [18–20] or surveys [21, 22], and are sometimes subject to convenience sampling of available siblings or families of children who have specific neurodevelopmental conditions [23, 24]. The evidence base around the health outcomes of siblings at a population level is relatively sparse. Compared to surveys and clinical samples, population-based data can help obtain adequate sibling sample sizes and representation for minority groups and rare conditions [25–31]. Population data also allow the selection of comparison groups from the same time period and data collection parameters, which strengthens the context and interpretation of the findings. Further, it can also reduce the need for follow-up if enough data are available. Existing data minimises recall bias, attrition, or limitations on resources to engage participants, that can occur when collecting data from individuals directly [32].

Population data relating to individuals with neurodevelopmental conditions are usually collected and maintained in specific administrative databases [33–36], or in disability-specific population databases [26, 37–40], and these rarely include data on other family members. Using data linkage methodologies, disability data can be connected to health and other datasets, including genealogical connections, to follow individuals or families across wide-ranging domains. Linkage allows for large-scale analyses to occur for specific sibling health outcomes and wellbeing trajectories, and provides a unique evidence-base from linking together information that would otherwise remain siloed or fragmented [32, 41–43]. The use of high quality linkage methods and databases can minimise linkage error bias that can occur when linking population data [44].

The benefits of applying data linkage to independent data sources for sibling research are significant [45, 46]. Linkage can update or extend existing data repositories and can rapidly merge relevant information for faster interpretation and response, especially important for mental health concerns. Life course experiences of siblings can be tracked [47] across a wide variety of contacts with health (e.g. hospital visits, medication prescriptions, mental health contacts) or other registries (e.g. education, census data, crime) until the end of the follow up period, or death [28, 41]. Data linkage can be used to improve visibility of siblings of individuals with rarer neurodevelopmental conditions for whom understanding health patterns and circumstances may require data extensions beyond a single administrative system. The data linkage process itself is able to preserve confidentiality [48] and reduces the need to approach individuals to collect information that may already exist, or be difficult to collect.

The objective of this scoping review was to explore the application of population data linkage as a research method to capture health outcomes of siblings of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions, and ways data linkage can enhance knowledge in this field. This review describes the population characteristics and methodology of studies meeting the eligibility criteria, the neurodevelopmental conditions of index children, sibling health outcomes reported, and the infrastructure used.

Before commencement, scoping review databases (Open Science Framework, Figshare, JBI Evidence Synthesis, and BMJ Open) were searched for similar registered reviews, but no protocols involving the key terms for this review were identified.

Review questions

What are the characteristics of population data linkage studies that capture health outcomes of siblings of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions?

How has population data linkage been used in these studies to capture health outcomes that originate in childhood or young adulthood, what are the capabilities of data linkage to explore wide scale health outcomes for siblings, and what could be enhanced to improve future sibling research involving linked data?

Inclusion criteria

Studies using population data linkage (administrative data, registry data, and research databases) in a defined geographical area (a country, state or territory, or region bounded by government or administration) to capture health outcomes (physical and/or mental health) of siblings of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions were considered. All study designs were included e.g. quantitative, population based, longitudinal or cohort studies, if they met the inclusion criteria.

Studies were included if both index children with neurodevelopmental conditions and their siblings were children or young adults, defined as being aged up to 25 years [49]. Siblings did not need to be the primary group of interest as long as sibling data (full or half siblings) were presented. In studies where sibling ages were not stated or were combined with cases/controls, the estimated mean age for index children could not exceed 25 years. Twin studies were included if twins were identifiable in subgroups, and if other singleton sibling data were available. Where possible, comparators comprising of siblings of children and young adults without neurodevelopmental conditions were included.

The neurodevelopmental conditions of index children must have been diagnosed clinically and/or recorded as an entry in either a population administrative dataset(s), diagnosis specific registry or project database using standardised classification systems (e.g. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) [50], International Classification of Diseases (ICD) [51]). For example, identification of a diagnosis of intellectual disability using DSM in a disability specific registry, a record of autism using an ICD code in registry-based patient records, or identification of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a medication code in a prescribed drug registry.

Sibling health outcomes captured must have been presented as clinical diagnoses and recorded as a standardised entry in a relevant database. For example, identification of a diagnosis of obesity using a record of ICD code in registry-based hospital records, or a record of death using a cause of death code in a mortality registry. No inclusion criteria were applied to social, cultural and gender constructs.

Methods

This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [52], and a JBI checklist was completed as an assessment of conformity [53]. A protocol was published a priori in Open Science Framework [54] which outlined the objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods planned [55].

Search strategy

The search strategy was developed in consultation with a subject specialist librarian. The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO), Scopus, and Web of Science. All search terms belonged to one of four categories: data linkage, neurodevelopmental conditions, siblings, and health outcomes (Supplementary Material 1). Papers were excluded if they were: published before the year 2000; without abstracts/full text; from non-peer reviewed sources; or in grey literature (e.g. theses). The search was performed for papers published between 1^st January 2000 and 1^st October 2024. The search returned 9,753 matches.

Source of evidence screening and selection

Records were imported into Endnote and duplicates were deleted (n = 4,098). The SR-Accelerator (SRA) suite of automated tools [56] was used to facilitate the screening and selection process. The Screenatron function was used to screen all records at the title/abstract level and the full-text level. The Disputatron function was used to identify areas of inconsistencies between reviewers.

Step 1 (Title/abstract level): Titles and abstracts for all included records (n = 5,655) were independently screened by two reviewers (CG and EG) using Screenatron. Records were then marked as ‘include’ or ‘exclude’ by each reviewer. In cases where the reviewers were unsure, records were marked ‘include’. The lists of both reviewers were then imported into Disputatron to identify reviewer inconsistencies. In cases where the reviewers disagreed, records were marked ‘include’ for screening at the next level. Full-texts for all included records were obtained through databases, online, or requests from other institutions/authors.

Step 2 (Full-text level): Eligible full-text papers (n = 285) were independently screened by CG and EG using Screenatron and Disputatron (as per Step 1). In cases where the reviewers disagreed, papers were discussed, and in all cases, agreement was met.

Step 3 (References level): Reference lists of all included papers (n = 31) were manually screened by CG for additional papers not identified in the initial search. Additionally, the linked data reference library of the Population Health Research Network (PHRN) [57] was manually screened by CG. There were no additional papers identified at this level.

Papers were excluded when: data relating to siblings were not captured; there were no identifiable neurodevelopmental conditions among index children; non-standardised measures were used instead of diagnostic standardised classification systems (e.g. self/parent-report, survey responses and scales); the neurodevelopmental conditions among index children (e.g. autism) were the same as the sibling outcome observed (i.e. autism), such as recurrence risk studies; there were no linkages to other external data; the direction of the study design was retrospective, e.g. a sibling outcome such as obesity was identified first, then followed back to investigate the neurodevelopmental condition status of index children (e.g. autism); they were other reviews (systematic, scoping, literature etc.).

Data extraction

Data on methodology and results were extracted from papers by one reviewer (CG), using a customised form created by two reviewers (CG & EG) (Supplementary Material 2), and over a quarter were cross checked by a second reviewer (EG). The form was updated as the extraction was performed. Extracted data fields included information about each paper’s aim in relation to the sibling data captured, type of neurodevelopmental condition of index children, sibling health outcomes captured, age range, population source, databases used, sample size and follow-up times.

Analysis and presentation of results

This scoping review identified, mapped, and summarised publicly available sources of population data linkage research capturing sibling health outcomes of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions. The findings are presented in an extraction table and supported by a descriptive summary of the findings that emerged iteratively through the extraction process.

Results

The identification and inclusion of papers were made according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr) [53] (Figure 1). A total of 31 papers met the criteria for inclusion.

Figure 1. PRISMA-Scr flow diagram [58]

CINAHL, Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO), Scopus, and Web of Science were the final search sources of evidence for papers that captured sibling health outcomes of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions using data linkage methods. Papers were published in a variety of journals, most of which related to the neurodevelopmental condition of index children or sibling health outcome observed (e.g. papers capturing data on psychiatric disorders were published in psychiatric journals). Some journals had a broader focus (e.g. paediatrics, open medical journals), and a few journals related to population-based methodology (e.g. epidemiology, population health) [59, 60]. A summary of paper characteristics of the final sources of evidence are reported in the Summary table (Table 1). The full results of this scoping review are reported in the Data extraction table (Supplementary Material 3). The following findings are presented as a descriptive summary of the paper characteristics, methodologies, neurodevelopmental condition of index children, and sibling health outcomes presented.

Table 1: Summary table.

Paper characteristics		n = 31	%
Geographic location
	Sweden	20	64
	Taiwan	6	19
	Finland	2	7
	Norway	1	3
	Denmark	1	3
	Canada	1	3
Publication year
	>2020	11	35
	2017-2020	13	42
	2013-2016	7	22
Neurodevelopmental condition of focus
	Autism	16	52
	Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder	10	32
	Intellectual disability	3	10
	Cerebral palsy	1	3
	Developmental delay	1	3
Sibling outcome
	Psychiatric/mental health	17	55
	Neurodevelopmental	5	16
	Physical health	9	29
Birth year (earliest)
	>1989	2	6
	1980-1989	10	32
	1970-1979	9	29
	1960-1969	2	6
	<1960	1	3
	Missing	7	22
Age range (years)
	>39	1	3
	30-39	6	19
	20-29	6	19
	10-19	4	13
	<10	3	10
	Missing	11	35
Follow up time (years)
	>30	12	39
	20-30	3	10
	<20	6	19
	Missing	10	32
Number of registries
	>7	5	16
	5–7	12	39
	<5	14	45
Study design
	Whole	16	52
	Matched	15	48
	1:50	3	20
	1:10	3	20
	1:5	2	13
	1:4	7	47
Sibling population size
	>999,000	4	13
	100,000-999,000	5	16
	<100,000	15	48
	Missing	7	23
Title references to siblings
	Siblings	11	35
	Family	12	39
	Neither	8	26
Sibling characteristics
	Birth order	6	19
	Sibling size	5	16
	Both	2	6
	Missing	18	58
Sibling focus
	Primary group of interest	9	29
	Comparison group	22	71

Print publication dates of included papers ranged from 2013 to 2024, most of these since 2019 (Table 1). Many papers referenced familial or first-degree relatives in the title and included siblings within this broad category (Table 1) [61–64]. Around one third of papers referenced siblings in the title of the paper [65–67], and in most of these, siblings were the primary interest group. The remainder of papers had no reference to siblings or family in the title [68–70]; however, sibling data were included in the abstract and body of the papers.

The majority of papers related to studies from Norden countries. The total papers were represented by the following countries in order of Sweden, Taiwan, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Canada (Table 1). Thirty-nine unique datasets were used for data linkage across all included studies, of which 20 were databases used in the 20 Swedish studies (Supplementary Material 3). On average, each paper reported on data from five linked datasets, up to 11 in some instances. The most commonly reported datasets were those relating to births, family connections, hospital, medication, health insurance, and deaths.

Half of the included papers reported a whole population study design, and the remainder a matched case-control study design (ratios ranged from 1:4 to 1:50 matched controls) (Table 1). Sibling cohort size for whole population studies ranged from 3,410 to 4,289,186, with a mean of 1,270,764 individuals (Table 1). As expected, sibling population sizes were smaller among matched control designs, ranging from 1,304 to 665,994, with a mean of 82,793 individuals. One third of included papers reported on paternal and maternal half siblings, in addition to full siblings. Almost half of all papers reported sibling characteristics such as birth order and/or sibling size.

Across all papers, duration of follow-up ranged from 15 to 77 years with a mean of 31 years, and sibling ages ranged from 0 to 44 years (Table 1). Cohort birth years ranged from 1932 to 2013, with around one-third of studies having birth years beginning between 1980 to 1989.

Siblings were the primary group of interest in almost one third of papers, while the remaining two-thirds of papers included sibling data for comparison to the index cases and/or controls (Table 1). Each paper’s aim has been provided in relation to the sibling data captured within the paper (Supplementary Material 3).

The neurodevelopmental conditions of index children included autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, and developmental delay (Table 1). Most studies on autism included subgrouping for the presence of intellectual disability [71], and over half captured sibling outcomes for these subgroups [72, 73]. Two studies on intellectual disability included subgrouping by severity levels, and one of these reported sibling outcomes for the subgroups (Supplementary Material 3) [74].

Sibling health outcomes captured were wide ranging, from broad outcome categories to specific conditions (Supplementary Material 3) [6, 75–79]. The most common were psychiatric or mental health conditions, followed by physical health conditions, and neurodevelopmental conditions (Table 1).

Discussion

Findings from this review demonstrate the utility of population data linkage to capture health outcomes of siblings of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions, including when siblings are not the primary focus. The sibling data captured in the reviewed papers, and the final number of included papers, was shaped by the data linkage capabilities in the area where the research was being conducted, and therefore narrowed the findings accordingly. Despite this, the search was able to generate an informative understanding of the application of data linkage as a method to deliver population perspective in this field. The included papers demonstrated a wide scope in target populations and sample sizes, a range of diagnostic observations, and availability of sibling data spanning decades of data collection. These qualities have significant benefits for sibling research by facilitating the exploration of sibling wellbeing in adequate samples across disability types, developmental ages and a broad range of outcomes, allowing representation of siblings in a variety of contexts.

Recent increases in the number of eligible papers indicates a general growth in sibling-based research. The countries represented in this scoping review reflects the availability of population data infrastructure and capabilities in those regions, the linkages that readily occur between datasets, and locations where genealogical connections may be more available [80–84]. Sweden, for example, has established two population registers, the population register (maintained by the Swedish National tax agency), and the Total Population Register (TPR) (maintained by the government agency Statistics Sweden). Both registers contain large amounts of health and other data, and family links, and updates are transmitted daily [81]. Whereas, in Taiwan, a data repository site, the Health and Welfare Data Science Center (HWDC), was established to centralise the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) and around 70 other health databases, to streamline research data management [82]. The power of data aggregation from both types of infrastructure is significant, and combined with the availability of family linkages resulted in the inclusion of many papers into this review. The absence of papers from other geographical areas with established data infrastructure and linkage capabilities [85, 86] reflect capability or methodological differences that prevented their inclusion in the current review, and highlights avenues for future research in this field to be explored.

The types of registries used in the included studies varied, depending on the diagnostic groups of index children, sibling health outcomes observed, and the availability and suitability of data sources [87]. Many studies used government registries e.g. birth registers, which support broad population data collection and increase the feasibility to conduct linkage to other datasets. The use of longitudinal government-maintained statutory databases assumes a consistency and quality of data and data linkage methods, providing confidence to the findings of studies that use these resources. Studies typically linked multiple registries, demonstrating the versatility and broad application of data linkage methods for sibling research, where data may need to be captured across different domains. This allows considerable power and breadth in the types of analyses that can be made at the population level, and demonstrates the benefits of combining data from sources that would otherwise remain independent [88, 89].

The majority of studies used ICD codes extracted from government-based records (e.g. hospital, prescription, or mortality databases) to identify diagnostic groups and/or outcomes [81, 82], enhancing consistency and replication of the studies. However, validation issues surrounding adequate identification of neurodevelopmental conditions such as intellectual disability in these databases have been raised and should be acknowledged [90]. Other studies used DSM classification systems to identify diagnostic groups and/or outcomes, which may be partial to similar limitations. In addition, diagnostic trends and the ability to co-diagnose some neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g. autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [91]) have evolved over time, and comparability across a long time period may be limited. Knowledge has also increased of the presentation of some conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in individuals with a learning or intellectual disability [92], or autism in females [93], which may also impact on comparisons across different studies or time cohorts. It also warrants caution in using coded data for inferring genetic risk. In this review, studies often used non-government registries (i.e. Stockholm youth cohort, psychiatric registers), which typically housed data dedicated to specific conditions, not purely for administrative purposes [94]. Such registries can provide unique data and perspective, greater diagnostic accuracy, inclusion of rarer conditions, and finer details such as severity level, which are vital to assessing sibling outcomes [14, 95]. However, for condition-specific registries, availability of family links may not be possible or sustainable due to the resources required to build and maintain them. Resources devoted to developing these data sources, and enhancing linkage capabilities between government-based datasets and disability specific/non-government datasets would help improve the availability of data capture in the future.

The lengthy follow-up times of the included studies highlight a significant benefit of using linked data for sibling research, enabling longitudinal data analyses, spanning different developmental and life stages within a relatively short analytical timeframe. In contrast, establishing a prospective study to collect equivalent data would require sustained data collection and resources over the entire follow up period. It is vital to consider life-course approaches to sibling mental health, as many siblings adopt formal carer roles later in life, and experience challenges as adults [96], but for some, mental health concerns are already observed in childhood [21]. Data linkage allows the analysis of health and wellbeing indicators from birth to understand trajectories of development and change, covering boundaries of childhood, where siblings live with their families, to early adulthood where independence is reached, and formal caregiving may occur within the enduring sibling relationship. Data linkage allows bridging of childhood and young adulthood data with health outcomes observed later in adulthood to support a lifespan approach to monitoring and improving sibling wellbeing.

The length of exposure, based on the youngest age at which outcome conditions were diagnosed in siblings, can be used to determine at what ages sibling supports are most needed [25, 45, 83]. Some studies in this review used a narrow age range, e.g. nine calendar years, and reported specific sibling outcomes for that age period [97, 98], showcasing more precise capabilities of data linkage methods. However, the majority of studies grouped sibling data, regardless of age and length of follow up, sometimes spanning 77 years [75], thereby limiting the interpretation by sibling age due to the lengthy time periods of mixed-age data aggregation. The use of linked longitudinal population data to advocate for sibling supports at more specific life stages is an important capability, and is a recommended focus in future work.

Reliable integration of genealogical data can be difficult to incorporate at scale using other non-linkage-based study designs. The papers in this review all used population-based genealogy to establish sibling relationships (full siblings, maternal/paternal half siblings etc.), of up to 4.3 million individuals in the largest sample [42]. Sibling characteristics such as sibling size, spacing and birth order are considered important risk or protective factors for various health outcomes [99, 100] and reporting of these characteristics is readily facilitated by linked population data. In this review, some papers included frequencies of sibling characteristics as demographic content [67, 68, 76, 101–103], while others included sibling characteristics as covariates to control for confounding effects [104], often combined with other socio-economic variables, thus limiting the context of the findings for siblings. In papers that reported these characteristics more comprehensively, additional benefits of population data for sibling outcomes were demonstrated [60, 79]. For example, presenting outcome rates based on the sex of the sibling, sibling size, and age distance to the index child [60], and using birth order to define sibling dyads and degree of risk [79]. Incorporating and reporting detailed sibling characteristics allows a greater understanding of how sibling relationships and family environments shape their outcomes across multiple domains.

Siblings can have unique life experiences, often shaped by the type and severity of neurodevelopmental conditions among children in the family [9]. Study designs that allow for comparisons to be made between condition types and severity levels can provide greater accuracy about sibling experiences and outcomes. Data linkage methodologies can facilitate this design, particularly for rare or lower prevalence conditions, and the ability to link to registries containing finer diagnostic detail. All papers in this review focused on index children with the same neurodevelopmental condition, thus limiting the ability to compare outcomes between different diagnostic groups in the one study design. One paper that focused on intellectual disability, reported outcomes for different intellectual disability severity levels, allowing enhanced sibling data to be captured, for example, showing stronger sibling risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for mild and moderate intellectual disability than for severe intellectual disability [74]. Most papers did not report results by level of intellectual disability, citing potential overlapping genetic risk for neurodevelopmental conditions [105, 106] or the lower prevalence levels in intellectual disability subgroups [94], it may also be due to inadequate identification of intellectual disability in the databases used [90]. Studies including index children with autism, often subgrouped by the presence or absence of intellectual disability, reflecting the recognised independent effects of both autism and intellectual disability on outcomes [102, 107–109]. Studies where sibling data can be captured for different severity levels allow interpretation of the impact these differences may have on sibling health outcomes, and consequentially, understanding how to best support siblings according to their family circumstances.

The neurodevelopmental conditions of index children and sibling outcomes among studies included in this scoping review reflected population prevalence and publication trends, whereby neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism, and sibling health outcomes such as mental health conditions were collectively the most commonly explored [25, 45]. All studies captured sibling data showing some degree of increased risk or higher prevalence of the assessed outcomes among siblings of children and young adults with, compared to those without neurodevelopmental conditions [110]. The poorer outcomes observed for siblings at the population level supports the use of data linkage as a research tool to explore and report health disparities across a diverse range of outcomes. Most studies concluded the shared causal or risk factors prompt the need for further studies [67, 111] to assess genetic and environmental associations in the same study design. Some extended this to recommend preventive and clinical interventions be explored, and early identification and assessment for siblings [65, 66, 79, 103, 107, 112, 113]. These recommendations indicate a real need to increase the focus on sibling data across psychosocial, educational, financial, environmental and other domains.

Limitations for sibling research

It was not an objective of this scoping review to evaluate the findings of the included papers, or to report on data linkage quality [114]. It is acknowledged that poor data quality and linkage error are potential limitations when linking data and may lead to biased results [46]. However, all studies included in this review utilised highly resourced databases and data linkage methods widely considered to be of high standard [81, 82, 115–118]. Despite this we can acknowledge some gaps and inconsistencies present in the reporting of data and methodology in its application to the field of sibling research.

One third of included papers did not contain sufficient detail to describe population characteristics and methodology across studies. This included data relating to population sizes, sibling selection, follow up periods, ages and birth years, age at sibling health outcome, and timeframes of data collection from the various registries. Most papers were published in health discipline journals rather than epidemiological journals that may help to explain some of the inconsistencies and omissions in methodological reporting across the included papers. Improving the reporting of data presentation would allow replication and extension of methodologies in the future, increase validity, and extend the implication of findings, leading to more relevant recommendations for sibling advocacy and supports [84].

In the majority of papers, sibling data were included as a comparison to the index cases and/or controls [119] rather than the primary group of interest. For example, children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions were compared with those without these conditions, and with their siblings. Sibling data captured from these comparisons allows general observations on health outcomes, and can help account for unmeasured genetic or shared environmental confounding. However, studies adopting a sibling-focused design can allow assessments of causal inference, and enable perspectives on undiagnosed traits, shared characteristics or diversity that may be present among other family members, improving the context applied to the data and the interpretation of sibling outcomes.

Future sibling research

With the increases in attention given to sibling research over time, and the readiness of data linkage to focus on specific population subgroups, it is expected that increasingly more data linkage studies will capture enhanced sibling data in the future, improving the depth and context of sibling research. In areas where population-based sibling data are available, an obligation exists to broaden the analysis of diagnostic groups and enhance study designs so that siblings are better represented across the full spectrum of disability. A coordinated approach internationally is also possible, to encourage replicability of study design and expansion to similar variables in different locations, increasing validity of findings, and considering rare diagnoses.

Conclusions

This scoping review demonstrated the application of data linkage as an effective method to capture data for siblings of children and young adults with neurodevelopmental conditions at a population level. While a narrow inclusion of geographical areas was represented, increasing data capabilities and more vigilant reporting in the future will help improve the amount and visibility of research conducted with ongoing benefits for addressing the wellbeing of siblings.

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest in relation to this review.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this scoping review was not required.

Funding

This research is funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC)(GNT1184770), and a Senior Research Fellowship (1117105); and a UTP/RTA Scholarship from The University of Western Australia. The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of NHMRC. DR is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Bristol and University Hospitals Bristol and the Weston NHS Foundation Trust and a member of The MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/1).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of the Senior Librarians at The University of Western Australia for their guidance with the search terms and suggested databases.

Data availability statement

There are no datasets provided in this scoping review, results were collated from selected sources of evidence and presented in summary form and/or in Supplementary Material. Details for each of the sources are available in the references.

References

1. Reddihough D, Leonard H, Jacoby P, Kim R, Epstein A, Murphy N, et al. Comorbidities and quality of life in children with intellectual disability. Child Care Health Dev. 2021;47(5):654-66. 10.1111/cch.12873

   10.1111/cch.12873

2. Raouafi S, Achiche S, Raison M. Socioeconomic disparities and difficulties to access to healthcare services among Canadian children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities. Epidemiol Health. 2018;40:e2018010. 10.4178/epih.e2018010

   10.4178/epih.e2018010

3. Patel DR, Cabral MD, Ho A, Merrick J. A clinical primer on intellectual disability. Transl Pediatr. 2020;9(Suppl 1):S23-s35. 10.21037/tp.2020.02.02

   10.21037/tp.2020.02.02

4. Burke MM, Taylor JL, Urbano R, Hodapp RM. Predictors of future caregiving by adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2012;117(1):33-47. 10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.33

   10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.33

5. Davies K. Siblings and sociology: Manchester University Press; 2023.

6. Taggart L, Truesdale-Kennedy M, Ryan A, McConkey R. Examining the support needs of ageing family carers in developing future plans for a relative with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. 2012;16(3):217-34. 10.1177/1744629512456465

   10.1177/1744629512456465

7. White N, Hughes C. Why Siblings Matter : The Role of Brother and Sister Relationships in Development and Well-Being. Milton, UNITED KINGDOM: Taylor & Francis Group; 2017.

8. Dauz Williams P, Piamjariyakul U, Carolyn Graff J, Stanton A, Guthrie AC, Hafeman C, et al. Developmental Disabilities: Effects on Well Siblings. Issues in comprehensive pediatric nursing. 2010;33(1):39-55. 10.3109/01460860903486515

   10.3109/01460860903486515

9. Gray C, Leonard H, Wong K, Reed S, Schmidt K, Skoss R, et al. Down syndrome or Rett syndrome in the family: Parental reflections on sibling experience. Journal of intellectual & developmental disability. 2024;49(1):11-24. 10.3109/13668250.2023.2225353

   10.3109/13668250.2023.2225353

10. Glasson EJ, Bower C, Petterson B, de Klerk N, Chaney G, Hallmayer JF. Perinatal factors and the development of autism: a population study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(6):618-27. 10.1001/archpsyc.61.6.618

    10.1001/archpsyc.61.6.618

11. Bai D, Yip BHK, Windham GC, Sourander A, Francis R, Yoffe R, et al. Association of Genetic and Environmental Factors With Autism in a 5-Country Cohort. JAMA psychiatry (Chicago, Ill). 2019;76(10):1035-43. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1411

    10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1411

12. Koellinger PD, Okbay A, Kweon H, Schweinert A, Linnér RK, Goebel J, et al. Cohort profile: Genetic data in the German Socio-Economic Panel Innovation Sample (SOEP-G). PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0294896. 10.1371/journal.pone.0294896

    10.1371/journal.pone.0294896

13. Marquis S, Hayes MV, McGrail K. Factors that may affect the health of siblings of children who have an intellectual/developmental disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 2019;16(4):273-86. 10.1111/jppi.12309

    10.1111/jppi.12309

14. Wolff B, Magiati I, Roberts R, Pellicano E, Glasson EJ. Risk and resilience factors impacting the mental health and wellbeing of siblings of individuals with neurodevelopmental conditions: A mixed methods systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2022;98. 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102217

    10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102217

15. Lamsal R, Ungar WJ. Impact of growing up with a sibling with a neurodevelopmental disorder on the quality of life of an unaffected sibling: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(4):586-94. 10.1080/09638288.2019.1615563

    10.1080/09638288.2019.1615563

16. Hallion M, Taylor A, Roberts R. Complete mental health in adult siblings of those with a chronic illness or disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(3):296-301. 10.1080/09638288.2016.1251500

    10.1080/09638288.2016.1251500

17. Wolff B, Franco VR, Magiati I, Pestell CF, Glasson EJ. Psychosocial and neurocognitive correlates of suicidal thoughts and behaviours amongst siblings of persons with and without neurodevelopmental conditions. Res Dev Disabil. 2023;139:104566. 10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104566

    10.1016/j.ridd.2023.104566

18. Pavlopoulou G, Dimitriou D. ‘I don’t live with autism; I live with my sister’. Sisters’ accounts on growing up with their preverbal autistic siblings. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2019;88:1-15. 10.1016/j.ridd.2019.01.013

    10.1016/j.ridd.2019.01.013

19. Benderix Y, Sivberg B. Siblings’ Experiences of Having a Brother or Sister With Autism and Mental Retardation: A Case Study of 14 Siblings From Five Families. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2007;22(5):410-8. 10.1016/j.pedn.2007.08.013

    10.1016/j.pedn.2007.08.013

20. Trew S. Close Relationships Despite the Challenges: Sibling Relationships and Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2024. 10.1007/s10803-024-06412-4

    10.1007/s10803-024-06412-4

21. Wolff B, Franco VR, Magiati I, Cooper MN, Roberts R, Skoss R, et al. Individual-Level Risk and Resilience Factors Associated with Mental Health in Siblings of Individuals with Neurodevelopmental Conditions: A Network Analysis. Dev Neuropsychol. 2023;48(3):112-34. 10.1080/87565641.2023.2190119

    10.1080/87565641.2023.2190119

22. Larson CC, O’Donnell L, Soileau B, Van Riper M, Stark D, Hale DE, et al. Understanding type and quality of relationships between individuals with chromosome 18 syndromes and their siblings. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2024;33(5):1070-81. 10.1002/jgc4.1823

    10.1002/jgc4.1823

23. Cooke E, Smith C, Miguel MC, Staton S, Thorpe K, Chawla J. Siblings experiences of sleep disruption in families with a child with Down syndrome. Sleep Health: Journal of the National Sleep Foundation. 2024;10(2):198-204. 10.1016/j.sleh.2023.10.002

    10.1016/j.sleh.2023.10.002

24. Dias BLS, de Rodrigues MCC, Duarte JLMB. Quality of life of families and siblings of children with cerebral palsy treated at a reference neurorehabilitation center in Brazil. Jornal de Pediatria. 2024;100(5):519-26. 10.1016/j.jped.2024.03.010

    10.1016/j.jped.2024.03.010

25. Lin E, Balogh R, Isaacs B, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Selick A, Wilton AS, et al. Strengths and Limitations of Health and Disability Support Administrative Databases for Population-Based Health Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 2014;11(4):235-44. 10.1111/jppi.12098

    10.1111/jppi.12098

26. Strobel NA, Bourke J, Leonard H, Richardson A, Edmond KM, McAullay D. Assessing the quality, efficiency and usefulness of the Western Australian population-based Intellectual Disability Exploring Answers (IDEA) surveillance system: a surveillance system evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e026003. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026003

    10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026003

27. Bourke J, de Klerk N, Smith T, Leonard H. Population-based prevalence of intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders in Western Australia: A comparison with previous estimates. Medicine. 2016;95(21):e3737-e. 10.1097/MD.0000000000003737

    10.1097/MD.0000000000003737

28. Balogh R, Leonard H, Bourke J, Brameld K, Downs J, Hansen M, et al. Data linkage: Canadian and Australian perspectives on a valuable methodology for intellectual and developmental disability research. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2019;57(5):439-62. 10.1352/1934-9556-57.5.439

    10.1352/1934-9556-57.5.439

29. Frullanti E, Papa FT, Grillo E, Clarke A, Ben-Zeev B, Pineda M, et al. Analysis of the Phenotypes in the Rett Networked Database. Int J Genomics. 2019;2019:6956934. 10.1155/2019/6956934

    10.1155/2019/6956934

30. Gur RE, Roalf DR, Alexander-Bloch A, McDonald-McGinn DM, Gur RC. Pathways to understanding psychosis through rare – 22q11.2DS – and common variants. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2021;68:35-40. 10.1016/j.gde.2021.01.007

    10.1016/j.gde.2021.01.007

31. Leonard H, Glasson E, Bebbington A, Hammond G, Croft D, Pikora T, et al. Chapter Eight - Application of Population-Based Linked Data to the Study of Intellectual Disability and Autism. In: Urbano RC, editor. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities. 45: Academic Press; 2013. p. 281-327.

32. Penner AM, Dodge KA. Using Administrative Data for Social Science and Policy. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 2019;5(2):1-18. 10.7758/rsf.2019.5.2.01

    10.7758/rsf.2019.5.2.01

33. Lai MC, Saunders NR, Huang A, Artani A, Wilton AS, Zaheer J, et al. Self-Harm Events and Suicide Deaths Among Autistic Individuals in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2327415. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27415

    10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27415

34. Harasymiw LA, Grosse SD, Cullen KR, Bitsko RH, Perou R, Sarafoglou K. Depressive and anxiety disorders and antidepressant prescriptions among insured children and young adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia in the United States. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1129584. 10.3389/fendo.2023.1129584

    10.3389/fendo.2023.1129584

35. Ho LP, Lee YC. Prevalence of developmental delay among children: A national study based on administrative database of the single-payer National Health Insurance System in Taiwan. Child Care Health Dev. 2022;48(2):324-35. 10.1111/cch.12932

    10.1111/cch.12932

36. Rodriguez FH, 3rd, Raskind-Hood CL, Hoffman T, Farr SL, Glidewell J, Li JS, et al. How Well Do ICD-9-CM Codes Predict True Congenital Heart Defects? A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Based Multisite Validation Project. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(15):e024911. 10.1161/jaha.121.024911

    10.1161/jaha.121.024911

37. Anderson A, Wong K, Jacoby P, Downs J, Leonard H. Twenty years of surveillance in Rett syndrome: what does this tell us? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:87. 10.1186/1750-1172-9-87

    10.1186/1750-1172-9-87

38. Freud LR, Galloway S, Crowley TB, Moldenhauer J, Swillen A, Breckpot J, et al. Prenatal vs postnatal diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: cardiac and noncardiac outcomes through 1 year of age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023. 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.09.005

    10.1016/j.ajog.2023.09.005

39. Petterson B, Leonard H, Bourke J, Sanders R, Chalmers R, Jacoby P, et al. IDEA (Intellectual Disability Exploring Answers): A population-based database for intellectual disability in Western Australia. Annals of human biology. 2005;32(2):237-43. 10.1080/03014460500075035

    10.1080/03014460500075035

40. Leonard H, Bower C, English D. The prevalence and incidence of Rett syndrome in Australia. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;6 Suppl 1:8-10.

41. Connelly R, Playford CJ, Gayle V, Dibben C. The role of administrative data in the big data revolution in social science research. Social Science Research. 2016;59:1-12. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.015

    10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.015

42. Jutte DP, Roos LL, Brownell MD. Administrative Record Linkage as a Tool for Public Health Research. Annual Review of Public Health. 2011;32(1):91-108. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-100700

    10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-100700

43. Russ TC, Woelbert E, Davis KAS, Hafferty JD, Ibrahim Z, Inkster B, et al. How data science can advance mental health research. Nature Human Behaviour. 2019;3(1):24-32. 10.1038/s41562-018-0470-9

    10.1038/s41562-018-0470-9

44. Harron KL, Doidge JC, Knight HE, Gilbert RE, Goldstein H, Cromwell DA, et al. A guide to evaluating linkage quality for the analysis of linked data. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2017;46(5):1699-710. 10.1093/ije/dyx177

    10.1093/ije/dyx177

45. Glasson EJ, Hussain R. Linked data: Opportunities and challenges in disability research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2008;33(4):285-91. 10.1080/13668250802441409

    10.1080/13668250802441409

46. Harron K, Dibben C, Boyd J, Hjern A, Azimaee M, Barreto ML, et al. Challenges in administrative data linkage for research. Big Data & Society. 2017;4(2):2053951717745678. 10.1177/2053951717745678

    10.1177/2053951717745678

47. Austin AE, Parrish JW, Shanahan ME. Using time-to-event analysis to identify preconception and prenatal predictors of child protective services contact. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2018;82:83-91. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.025

    10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.025

48. Trutwein B, Holman CD, Rosman DL. Health data linkage conserves privacy in a research-rich environment. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16(4):279-80. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2005.05.003

    10.1016/j.annepidem.2005.05.003

49. Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Young Adult Health and Well-Being: A Position Statement of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2017;60(6):758-9. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.03.021

    10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.03.021

50. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR): American Psychiatric Association; 2024 [Available from: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

51. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD): World Health Organisation 2024 [Available from: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases

52. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H, et al. Scoping reviews. In: JBI, editor. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2020.

53. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467-73. 10.7326/M18-0850

    10.7326/M18-0850

54. Open Science Framework 2024 [Available from: https://osf.io].

55. Gray C, Leonard, H., & Glasson, E. Neurodevelopmental conditions: using population level linked data to identify sibling health outcomes. A scoping review protocol. 2023. Available from: https://osf.io/varhf.

56. Clark J, Glasziou P, Del Mar C, Bannach-Brown A, Stehlik P, Scott AM. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:81-90. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008

    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008

57. Population Health Research Network 2024 [Available from: https://www.phrn.org.au/publications/research-publications/].

58. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery. 2021;88:105906. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

    10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

59. Hegvik TA, Chen Q, Kuja-Halkola R, Klungsøyr K, Butwicka A, Lichtenstein P, et al. Familial co-Aggregation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autoimmune diseases: A cohort study based on Swedish population-wide registers. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2022;51(3):898-909. 10.1093/ije/dyab151

    10.1093/ije/dyab151

60. Marquis SM, McGrail K, Hayes MV. A population-level study of the mental health of siblings of children who have a developmental disability. SSM - Population Health. 2019;8. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100441

    10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100441

61. Ghirardi L, Kuja-Halkola R, Butwicka A, Martin J, Larsson H, D’Onofrio BM, et al. Familial and genetic associations between autism spectrum disorder and other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021;62(11):1274-84. 10.1111/jcpp.13508

    10.1111/jcpp.13508

62. Hirvikoski T, Boman M, Chen Q, D’Onofrio BM, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Lichtenstein P, et al. Individual risk and familial liability for suicide attempt and suicide in autism: a population-based study. Psychol Med. 2020;50(9):1463-74. 10.1017/s0033291719001405

    10.1017/s0033291719001405

63. Sundquist J, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K, Kendler KS. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for drug use disorder: A population-based follow-up and co-relative study. Psychological Medicine. 2015;45(5):977-83. 10.1017/S0033291714001986

    10.1017/S0033291714001986

64. Taylor MJ, Larsson H, Lundström S, Lichtenstein P, Butwicka A. Etiological links between autism and difficulties in initiating and maintaining sleep: a familial co-aggregation and twin study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2022;63(3):315-23. 10.1111/jcpp.13473

    10.1111/jcpp.13473

65. Chang TH, Tai YH, Dai YX, Chang YT, Chen TJ, Chen MH. Risk of Atopic Diseases among Siblings of Patients with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology. 2019;180(1):37-43. 10.1159/000500831

    10.1159/000500831

66. Lin HC, Cheng CM, Huang KL, Hsu JW, Bai YM, Tsai SJ, et al. Developmental and mental health risks among siblings of patients with autism spectrum disorder: a nationwide study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2022;31(9):1361-6. 10.1007/s00787-021-01784-9

    10.1007/s00787-021-01784-9

67. Tollanes MC, Wilcox AJ, Stoltenberg C, Lie RT, Moster D. Neurodevelopmental Disorders or Early Death in Siblings of Children With Cerebral Palsy. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). 10.1542/peds.2016-0269

    10.1542/peds.2016-0269

68. Liu Q, Yin W, Meijsen JJ, Reichenberg A, Gådin JR, Schork AJ, et al. Cancer risk in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Annals of Oncology. 2022;33(7):713-9. 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.006

    10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.006

69. Liu QW, Adami HO, Reichenberg A, Kolevzon A, Fang F, Sandin S. Cancer risk in individuals with intellectual disability in Sweden: A population-based cohort study. Plos Medicine. 2021;18(10). 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003840

    10.1371/journal.pmed.1003840

70. Ljung T, Chen Q, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H. Common etiological factors of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and suicidal behavior: a population-based study in Sweden. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(8):958-64.

71. Wang HE, Cheng CM, Bai YM, Hsu JW, Huang KL, Su TP, et al. Familial coaggregation of major psychiatric disorders in first-degree relatives of individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a nationwide population-based study. Psychological Medicine. 2022;52(8):1437-47. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003840

    10.1371/journal.pmed.1003840

72. Ahlberg R, Garcia-Argibay M, Hirvikoski T, Boman M, Chen Q, Taylor MJ, et al. Shared familial risk factors between autism spectrum disorder and obesity – a register-based familial coaggregation cohort study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2022;63(8):890-9. 10.1111/jcpp.13538

    10.1111/jcpp.13538

73. Selten J-P, Lundberg M, Rai D, Magnusson C. Risks for nonaffective psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder in young people with autism spectrum disorder: A population-based study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(5):483-9.

74. Faraone SV, Ghirardi L, Kuja-Halkola R, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H. The Familial Co-Aggregation of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Intellectual Disability: A Register-Based Family Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2017;56(2):167-74. 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.11.011

    10.1016/j.jaac.2016.11.011

75. Larsson H, Rydén E, Boman M, Långström N, Lichtenstein P, Landén M. Risk of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in relatives of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2013;203(2):103-6. 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.120808

    10.1192/bjp.bp.112.120808

76. Kuja-Halkola R, Juto KL, Skoglund C, Ruck C, Mataix-Cols D, Perez-Vigil A, et al. Do borderline personality disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder co-aggregate in families? A population-based study of 2 million Swedes. Molecular Psychiatry. 2021;26(1):341-9. 10.1038/s41380-018-0248-5

    10.1038/s41380-018-0248-5

77. Chen MH, Pan TL, Huang KL, Hsu JW, Bai YM, Su TP, et al. Coaggregation of major psychiatric disorders in first-degree relatives of individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A nationwide population-based study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2019;80(3).

78. Påhlsson-Notini A, Liu S, Tideman M, Latvala A, Serlachius E, Larsson H, et al. Substance use-related problems in mild intellectual disability: A Swedish nationwide population-based cohort study with sibling comparison. JCPP Advances. 2024;4(2):e12225. 10.1002/jcv2.12225

    10.1002/jcv2.12225

79. Christensen J, Overgaard M, Parner ET, Vestergaard M, Schendel D. Risk of epilepsy and autism in full and half siblings-A population-based cohort study. Epilepsia. 2016;57(12):2011-8.

80. Ludvigsson JF, Otterblad-Olausson P, Pettersson BU, Ekbom A. The Swedish personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24(11):659-67. 10.1007/s10654-009-9350-y

    10.1007/s10654-009-9350-y

81. Ludvigsson JF, Almqvist C, Bonamy AK, Ljung R, Michaëlsson K, Neovius M, et al. Registers of the Swedish total population and their use in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(2):125-36. 10.1007/s10654-016-0117-y

    10.1007/s10654-016-0117-y

82. Hsieh CY, Su CC, Shao SC, Sung SF, Lin SJ, Kao Yang YH, et al. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database: past and future. Clin Epidemiol. 2019;11:349-58. 10.2147/clep.S196293

    10.2147/clep.S196293

83. Cnattingius S, Källén K, Sandström A, Rydberg H, Månsson H, Stephansson O, et al. The Swedish medical birth register during five decades: documentation of the content and quality of the register. Eur J Epidemiol. 2023;38(1):109-20. 10.1007/s10654-022-00947-5

    10.1007/s10654-022-00947-5

84. Maret-Ouda J, Tao W, Wahlin K, Lagergren J. Nordic registry-based cohort studies: Possibilities and pitfalls when combining Nordic registry data. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2017;45(17_suppl):14-9. 10.1177/1403494817702336

    10.1177/1403494817702336

85. Holman CD, Bass AJ, Rosman DL, Smith MB, Semmens JB, Glasson EJ, et al. A decade of data linkage in Western Australia: strategic design, applications and benefits of the WA data linkage system. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(4):766-77. 10.1071/ah080766

    10.1071/ah080766

86. Fleming M, Kirby B, Penny KI. Record linkage in Scotland and its applications to health research. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(19-20):2711-21. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04021.x

    10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04021.x

87. Mourby MJ, Doidge J, Jones KH, Aidinlis S, Smith H, Bell J, et al. Health Data Linkage for UK Public Interest Research: Key Obstacles and Solutions. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2019;4(1):1093. 10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.1093

    10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.1093

88. Gilbert R, Lafferty R, Hagger-Johnson G, Harron K, Zhang L-C, Smith P, et al. GUILD: GUidance for Information about Linking Data sets†. Journal of Public Health. 2018;40(1):191-8. 10.1093/pubmed/fdx037

    10.1093/pubmed/fdx037

89. Roos LL, Wall-Wieler E, Burchill C, Hamm NC, Hamad AF, Lix LM. Record linkage and big data—enhancing information and improving design. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022;150:18-24. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.006

    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.006

90. Bourke J, Wong K, Leonard H. Validation of intellectual disability coding through hospital morbidity records using an intellectual disability population-based database in Western Australia. BMJ open. 2018;8(1):e019113-e. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019113

    10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019113

91. Martinez S, Stoyanov K, Carcache L. Unraveling the spectrum: overlap, distinctions, and nuances of ADHD and ASD in children. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2024;15.

92. Palmer M, Fang Z, Carter Leno V, Simonoff E. Psychometric properties of two ADHD rating scales used in children with ADHD and intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2024;n/a(n/a). 10.1111/jir.13185

    10.1111/jir.13185

93. Simcoe SM, Gilmour J, Garnett MS, Attwood T, Donovan C, Kelly AB. Are there gender-based variations in the presentation of Autism amongst female and male children? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2023;53(9):3627-35. 10.1007/s10803-022-05552-9

    10.1007/s10803-022-05552-9

94. Idring S, Rai D, Dal H, Dalman C, Sturm H, Zander E, et al. Autism spectrum disorders in the Stockholm Youth Cohort: design, prevalence and validity. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41280. 10.1371/journal.pone.0041280

    10.1371/journal.pone.0041280

95. Wolff B, Franco VR, Magiati I, Pestell CF, Glasson EJ. Neurocognitive and self-reported psychosocial and behavioral functioning in siblings of individuals with neurodevelopmental conditions: a study using remote self-administered testing. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2023;45(5):513-36. 10.1080/13803395.2023.2259042

    10.1080/13803395.2023.2259042

96. Milevsky A, Singer O. Growing up alongside a sibling with a disability: A phenomenological examination of growth and deficiency in adulthood. Res Dev Disabil. 2022;130:104336. 10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104336

    10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104336

97. Nimmo-Smith V, Heuvelman H, Dalman C, Lundberg M, Idring S, Carpenter P, et al. Anxiety Disorders in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Population-Based Study. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders. 2020;50(1):308-18. 10.1007/s10803-019-04234-3

    10.1007/s10803-019-04234-3

98. Rai D, Heuvelman H, Dalman C, Culpin I, Lundberg M, Carpenter P, et al. Association Between Autism Spectrum Disorders With or Without Intellectual Disability and Depression in Young Adulthood. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4). 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1465

    10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1465

99. Carballo JJ, García-Nieto R, Alvarez-García R, Caro-Cañizares I, López-Castromán J, Muñoz-Lorenzo L, et al. Sibship size, birth order, family structure and childhood mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2013;48(8):1327-33. 10.1007/s00127-013-0661-7

    10.1007/s00127-013-0661-7

100. Yu W-h, Yan HX. Effects of Siblings on Cognitive and Sociobehavioral Development: Ongoing Debates and New Theoretical Insights. American Sociological Review. 2023;88(6):1002-30. 10.1177/00031224231210258

     10.1177/00031224231210258

101. Chen Q, Hartman CA, Kuja-Halkola R, Faraone SV, Almqvist C, Larsson H. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and clinically diagnosed obesity in adolescence and young adulthood: A register-based study in Sweden. Psychological Medicine. 2019;49(11):1841-9. 10.1017/S0033291718002532

     10.1017/S0033291718002532

102. Stark I, Rai D, Lundberg M, Culpin I, Nordström SI, Ohlis A, et al. Autism and self-harm: A population-based and discordant sibling study of young individuals. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2022;146(5):468-77. 10.1111/acps.13479

     10.1111/acps.13479

103. Jokiranta-Olkoniemi E, Cheslack-Postava K, Joelsson P, Suominen A, Brown AS, Sourander A. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders in siblings. Psychological Medicine. 2019;49(1):84-91. 10.1017/s0033291718000521

     10.1017/s0033291718000521

104. Pourhoseingholi MA, Baghestani AR, Vahedi M. How to control confounding effects by statistical analysis. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2012;5(2):79-83.

105. Stessman HA, Xiong B, Coe BP, Wang T, Hoekzema K, Fenckova M, et al. Targeted sequencing identifies 91 neurodevelopmental-disorder risk genes with autism and developmental-disability biases. Nat Genet. 2017;49(4):515-26. 10.1038/ng.3792

     10.1038/ng.3792

106. Miller M, Musser ED, Young GS, Olson B, Steiner RD, Nigg JT. Sibling Recurrence Risk and Cross-aggregation of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. JAMA Pediatrics. 2019;173(2): 147-52. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4076

     10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4076

107. Jokiranta-Olkoniemi E, Cheslack-Postava K, Sucksdorff D, Suominen A, Gyllenberg D, Chudal R, et al. Risk of psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders among siblings of probands with autism spectrum disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(6):622-9. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0495

     10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0495

108. Tomeny TS, Ellis BM, Rankin JA, Barry TD. Sibling relationship quality and psychosocial outcomes among adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder and individuals with intellectual disability without autism. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;62:104-14. 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.008

     10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.008

109. Petalas MA, Hastings RP, Nash S, Lloyd T, Dowey A. Emotional and behavioural adjustment in siblings of children with intellectual disability with and without autism. Autism. 2009;13(5):471-83. 10.1177/1362361309335721

     10.1177/1362361309335721

110. Dai YX, Tai YH, Chang YT, Chen TJ, Chen MH. Increased Risk of Atopic Diseases in the Siblings of Patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2019;49(11):4626-33. 10.1007/s10803-019-04184-w

     10.1007/s10803-019-04184-w

111. Ghirardi L, Brikell I, Kuja-Halkola R, Freitag C, Franke B, Asherson P, et al. The familial co-aggregation of ASD and ADHD: A register-based cohort study. Molecular Psychiatry. 2018;23(2):257-62.

112. Butwicka A, Långström N, Larsson H, Lundström S, Serlachius E, Almqvist C, et al. Increased Risk for Substance Use-Related Problems in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2017;47(1):80-9. 10.1007/s10803-016-2914-2

     10.1007/s10803-016-2914-2

113. Wei HT, Pan TL, Hsu JW, Huang KL, Bai YM, Ko NY, et al. Risks of bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, and traumatic brain injury among siblings of patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2019;245:335-9. 10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.057

     10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.057

114. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty CM, Hempel S, Horsley T, et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Systematic Reviews. 2021;10(1):263. 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3

     10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3

115. Ark TK, Kesselring S, Hills B, McGrail KM. Population Data BC: Supporting population data science in British Columbia. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2020;4(2):1133. 10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1133

     10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1133

116. Smith Jervelund S, De Montgomery CJ. Nordic registry data: value, validity and future. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2020;48(1):1-4. 10.1177/1403494819898573

     10.1177/1403494819898573

117. Laugesen K, Ludvigsson JF, Schmidt M, Gissler M, Valdimarsdottir UA, Lunde A, et al. Nordic Health Registry-Based Research: A Review of Health Care Systems and Key Registries. Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;13(null):533-54. 10.2147/CLEP.S314959

     10.2147/CLEP.S314959

118. Population Data BC. Linking data for research: Informing policy-making for healthier communities. 2024.

119. Frisell T, Öberg S, Kuja-Halkola R, Sjölander A. Sibling comparison designs: bias from non-shared confounders and measurement error. Epidemiology. 2012;23(5):713-20. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31825fa230

     10.1097/EDE.0b013e31825fa230