Resources search

Objective: To investigate the impact of familial acquired brain injury on children and adult family members, including their views of the support provided, gaps and recommendations for future interventions.

Research design: Qualitative exploratory study using a phenomenological approach.

Method: Twenty-six participants were recruited from 12 families across the South AustralianBrain Injury Rehabilitation Service (SABIRS) and external community brain injury agencies in Adelaide, South Australia. Sixteen children aged 5–18 participated through ten semi-structured interviews. Ten adults attended six interviews. Following transcription and member checking, thematic analyses occurred with pooled data from all interviews undergoing open, axial and selective coding.

Main results: Analyses revealed four main themes: (1) help parents help their children, (2) improve family functioning by giving children meaningful roles, (3) staff: don’t leave children “in the dark,” and (4) support for children is not one size fits all.

Conclusions: Children and adults reported significant gaps in support offered by acute and brain injury services after familial acquired brain injury. Children and adults need to receive intervention in addition to the patient. To fill identified gaps, participants recommended more input by clinical staff including the use of technology; specifically, the development of age-appropriate applications, educational videos and interactive games.

Purpose: The study aims to explore factors that influence (facilitate or impede) direct support professionals supporting people with intellectual disabilities in engaging in physical activity. Influencing factors will be synthesized into a conceptual model to set the stage for developing future interventions and policies to change direct support professional behavior.

Method: Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 direct support professionals of people with mild to profound intellectual disabilities. Influencing factors were analyzed using both inductive and deductive coding strategies. The theoretical sources of behavior (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation) were leading components in the development of a conceptual model.

Results: Five influential factors facilitating or impeding physical-activity support were isolated that related to direct support professionals’ capability, eight to the opportunities afforded them, and 11 to their motivation. Another six inductively emerged, which related to the characteristics of people with intellectual disabilities and which then influenced the capability, opportunity, or motivation to engage in physical-activity support by direct support professionals.

Conclusions: Although experiences differed, the conceptual model developed here provides theoretically based targets for a comprehensive approach to changing direct support professional behavior and thus promoting the support of physical activity in people with intellectual disabilities.

Purpose: Stigmatisation can negatively affect opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in society. Stereotyping, a first step in the process of stigmatisation, has been insufficiently explored for people with intellectual disabilities. This study examined the general public’s set of stereotypes that is saliently attributed to people with intellectual disabilities as well as the relationship of these stereotypes with discriminatory intentions and familiarity.

Materials and methods: A mixed-method cross-sectional survey within a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 892) was used. Stereotypes were analysed with factor analysis of a trait-rating scale, and qualitative analysis of an open-ended question. The relationship between stereotypes and discrimination as well as familiarity with people with intellectual disabilities was explored through multivariate analyses.

Results and conclusions: Four stereotype-factors appeared: “friendly”, “in need of help”, “unintelligent”, and “nuisance”. Stereotypes in the “nuisance” factor seemed unimportant due to their infrequent report in the open-ended question. “Friendly”, “in need of help”, “unintelligent” were found to be salient stereotypes of people with intellectual disabilities due to their frequent report. The stereotypes did not relate to high levels of explicit discrimination. Yet due to the both positive and negative valence of the stereotypes, subtle forms of discrimination may be expected such as limited opportunities for choice and self-determination. This may affect opportunities for rehabilitation and might be challenged by protest-components within anti-stigma efforts.

Purpose: At least 5% of people in Australia and the USA have cognitive impairment and require support for decision-making. This paper details a research program whereby an evidence-based Support for Decision Making Practice Framework has been developed for those who support people with cognitive disabilities to make their own decisions across life domains.

Methods: The La Trobe framework was derived from a research program modeled on the Medical Research Council four-phase approach to development and evaluation of complex interventions. We completed phase one (development) by: (1) systematically reviewing peer-reviewed literature; and (2) undertaking qualitative exploration of the experience of support for decision-making from the perspectives of people with cognitive disabilities and their supporters through seven grounded theory studies. Results of phase two (feasibility and piloting) involving direct support workers and health professionals supported phase three (evaluation) and four (implementation), currently underway.

Results: The framework outlines the steps, principles, and strategies involved in support for decision-making. It focuses on understanding the will and preferences of people with cognitive disabilities and guides those who provide support including families, support workers, guardians, and health professionals.

Conclusions: This framework applies across diverse contemporary contexts and is the first evidence-based guide to support for decision-making.