Suchergebnisse

AbstractBackgroundAt the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic, some parents in the Netherlands decided to bring their offspring with intellectual disabilities, who normally live in residential care, home. The present study explored why the mothers decided to bring their offspring home.MethodInterviews were carried out with seven mothers of adults with intellectual disabilities. An interpretative phenomenological approach was used to establish in‐depth accounts of the mothers' experiences.ResultsThe analysis yielded three overarching themes: (a) Families are indispensable; (b) the complex role of being a mother of a child with intellectual disabilities; and (c) Who is looking out for our offspring during COVID‐19?ConclusionsThe mothers experienced a strong sense of wanting to do what was best for their offspring with intellectual disabilities during COVID‐19. The study provides insight into why mothers remain involved in the care for their offspring and the complexity of navigating lifelong care responsibilities.

AbstractBackgroundIncreasing the societal participation of people with intellectual disabilities via competitive employment requires a full understanding of what this means to them. This paper aims to provide an in‐depth examination of the lived experiences of people with intellectual disabilities in competitive employment.MethodInterviews were conducted with six participants with mild intellectual disability or borderline functioning and good verbal communication skills. Interviews were analysed according to the guidelines of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Member checks were conducted.ResultsAnalysis yielded three main themes: (a) Building on my life experiences, (b) My place at work and (c) Being a valuable member of society, like everyone else.ConclusionsCompetitive employment could make a substantial contribution to the sense of belonging to society and quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities. Nevertheless, they must cope with stigma‐related obstacles and feelings of being dependent on others in the work environment.

AbstractBackgroundTo enhance social inclusion of people with intellectual disability, policy is aimed at increasing informal support networks. Nevertheless, staff continue to play a vital role in their support networks.MethodSix individuals with mild intellectual disability, living in community‐based settings, were interviewed following a semi‐structured format. In‐depth accounts of participants' support experiences were established using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.ResultsThree main themes were identified: relationships with staff placed within a personal history, relationships with staff within an organisational context, and staff support and interviewees' place in the world.ConclusionsRelationships with staff were often one of the closest and most significant social relationships participants had. As living in the community had not necessarily led to meaningful inclusion for participants, the findings point at the important role of staff in supporting and facilitating friendships and close relationships of people with intellectual disability.

AbstractBackgroundInformal supportive networks of individuals with intellectual disability have become increasingly important. The aim of this paper is to describe how the Family Network Method – Intellectual Disability (FNM‐ID) offers a way to gather the perspective of people with mild intellectual disability on their family support.MethodThe FNM is designed to explore how individuals define their family contexts, and more specifically how they perceive existing supportive relationships in these contexts.ResultsBy carefully piloting ways of questioning people with mild intellectual disability, systematic adaptations were made to the original FNM. Data obtained by the FNM‐ID can be analysed using social network analysis. Thereby, the FNM‐ID provides rich, theoretically significant information on emotional support in the family networks of individuals with mild intellectual disability.ConclusionsThe FNM‐ID is a useful and successfully adapted tool for other researchers and professionals to systematically explore the family support experiences of individuals with mild intellectual disability.

AbstractInclusive research—in which people with an intellectual disability both collaborate with researchers and work as researchers themselves—has gained increased attention over the last three decades. Although the foundational principles of conducting inclusive research are well‐established at this point, there is a relative dearth of insights concerning the underlying reasons for collaborating as part of inclusive research projects. Therefore, this study sought to identify the reasons why researchers with experiential knowledge (n = 9), academic researchers (n = 8) and principal investigators (n = 10) collaborate within inclusive research projects. All 27 participants were interviewed individually, in order to explore their reasons for collaborating within one of the six inclusive research projects, which encompassed a range of research avenues within the field of intellectual disability research. A thematic analysis was conducted to gain insight into these reasons. For the three groups of participants, several themes emerged, such as experiencing full participation (researchers with experiential knowledge), making research (processes) better suited to the needs of participants with an intellectual disability (academic researchers) and striving for equivalence (principal investigators). Understanding why people collaborate within inclusive research projects is important for facilitating collaborative partnerships, which are a precondition for inclusive research projects.

AbstractBackgroundBased on self‐reported social capital, different typologies of family networks of people with intellectual disabilities were examined. Associations between behavioural and emotional problems or well‐being and typologies were investigated.Method137 participants with mild intellectual disability were interviewed using the Family Network Method‐Intellectual Disability to assess their emotionally supportive family relationships. Data on participants' well‐being and behavioural and emotional problems were also gathered. Latent class analysis was used to identify family typologies based on social network measures.ResultsFour distinguishable typologies were identified, two supportive and two less supportive. A small association was found with behavioural and emotional problems and one of the supportive typologies. Associations with constructs of well‐being were found for both supportive and less supportive typologies.ConclusionsA variety of family types were found, with implications for sensitive professional support.

AbstractTo enhance social inclusion of people with (mild) intellectual disabilities, policy tends to focus on increasing their informal supportive networks. Family members, mostly parents, are often the main providers of informal support to people with mild intellectual disabilities. Previous research has shown the utility of social capital as a theoretical framework to examine support in the family relationships of people with mild intellectual disabilities, and has shown that several features of the family‐based social capital of people with mild intellectual disabilities are dependent on support and living arrangements. However, existing research on support and living arrangements does not take the key features of family‐based social capital (i.e., bonding and bridging social capital, reciprocity) into account. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to examine the family‐based social capital of people with mild intellectual disabilities supported in 24‐h residential settings (n = 29) versus outreach support settings (n = 45). All participants were individually interviewed about their family support relationships using the Family Network Method‐Intellectual Disability (FNM‐ID). Data were analyzed quantitatively using social network analyses and group comparisons. No significant differences between the two subgroups were found in the social network measures: the two subgroups did not differ in their experience of bonding and bridging social capital, nor in terms of the experienced reciprocity in their family relationships. However, a few differences in the composition of the family network were found. While people with mild intellectual disabilities in outreach support settings were more likely to include children in their significant family network and to provide support to parents, participants in 24‐h care settings were more likely to report extended family as significant family network members.