Resources search

Partly due to a lack of evidence-based methods to support people with intellectual disability (ID) and challenging behavior, their needs are often poorly met. One way to generate rapid evidence is to systematically describe and monitor interventions that are considered to be “good practice”—to develop evidence based on practical knowledge. This study describes the Dutch practice-based intervention Triple-C (Client, Coach, Competence). The intervention was developed in practice to support people with severe ID to borderline functioning and challenging behavior. The practice-based nature of Triple-C means that many of the professionals’ actions or activities are often underpinned by their implicit knowledge about the intervention they are delivering. Consequently, as the emphasis is on practice, the professionals can find it difficult to articulate how the intervention is operationalized and positive change achieved. This study aimed to assess the practical knowledge of Triple-C professionals and to develop an understanding of the mechanisms of change for Triple-C to improve understanding and to inform future research about the intervention. Through an iterative process, a logic model was developed to describe the intervention and its underlying assumptions. The development of the logic model was shaped using interviews with the founders, focus groups with support staff, psychologists, managers and members of the board of a service provider, and the analysis of published accounts of the Triple-C intervention. Data gathered from these sources were analyzed using content analysis. The logic model of the Triple-C intervention provides insight into the key elements of the approach, such as the need for unconditional supportive relationship and carrying out meaningful activities. Moreover, the potential relationship with existing evidence-based interventions such as Positive Behavioral Support and Active Support are described. Dening the underlying logic of a practice-based intervention like Triple-C is an important first step toward producing an evidence base for interventions developed from clinical practice.

This paper discusses a case study of a Dutch work-integration social enterprise (WISE) to add to the debate on the contribution of employment to the citizenship of intellectually disabled people and those experiencing mental health conditions. In current welfare state policies, the value of labour market participation is narrowed down to regular employment, as workplace support and care provisions are seen as stigmatising and segregating. We argue that a more nuanced understanding is needed of the intersection of support arrangements with the benefits of employment. Building on ‘recognition theory’ by the German philosopher Honneth, our findings show that the work-integration social enterprise under study is successfully balancing the contrasting demands of logics of care and work, leading to experiences of ‘recognition.’ However, this balance is fragile and does not undo the misrecognition of disabled people as unable to live up to the productivity norms of a capitalist labour market.

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: Evaluating physical fitness in individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) is challenging, and a multitude of different versions of tests exist. However, psychometric properties of these tests are mostly unknown, and both researchers as clinical practitioners struggle with selecting appropriate tests for individuals with ID. We aim to present a selection of field tests with satisfactory feasibility, reliability, and validity, and of which reference data are available.

Methods: Tests were selected based on (1) literature review on psychometric properties, (2) expert meetings with physiotherapists and movement experts, (3) studies on population specific psychometric properties, and (3) availability of reference data. Tests were selected if they had demonstrated sufficient feasibility, reliability, validity, and possibilities for interpretation of results.

Results: We present a basic set of physical fitness tests, the ID-fitscan, to be used in (older) adults with mild to moderate ID and some walking ability. The ID-fitscan includes tests for body composition (BMI, waist circumference), muscular strength (grip strength), muscular endurance (30 second and five times chair stand), and balance (static balance stances, comfortable gait speed).

Conclusions: The ID-fitscan can be used by researchers, physiotherapists, and other clinical practitioners to evaluate physical fitness in adults with ID. Recommendations for future research include expansion of research into psychometric properties of more fitness tests and combining physical fitness data on this population in larger datasets.

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.

With inclusive research being an emerging field of interest, there is growing recognition that establishing collaborative relationships between researchers with and without ID entails specific demands. However, since studies on collaboration in inclusive research merely provide individual reports on experiences and challenges in one particular research project, building a shared knowledge base of concrete competencies considered important for those involved merits attention. This study contributes to a shared knowledge base in asking people with and without ID with (experiential) knowledge of inclusive research for competencies they consider important in collaborating in inclusive research in general, that is, without reference to a specific research project they participated in. Researchers with and without ID, coaches, policy makers, and teachers involved in the education of people with ID participated in this study. Data were collected from a focus group, individual interviews, and expert meetings. Qualitative analysis was carried out

immediately after each moment of data collection, providing the use of increasing insights in each consecutive phase of data collection. Participants describe that establishing collaborative relationships between researchers with and without ID in inclusive research requires the commitment of both parties. They mentioned concrete competencies they consider important for people with and without ID to collaborate in inclusive research in the categories: building a mutual relationship, communicating, achieving a collaboration in which everyone involved can contribute, being aware of skills and developmental needs, and being aware of impact. Clearly, describing competencies for people with and without ID is not intended to exclude anyone who does not possess these competencies from collaboration in inclusive research. However to avoid “tokenism,” this study might contribute to effective participation of people with ID in inclusive research in providing concrete competencies considered important in collaboration.

This publication provides introductory chapters from two activists who work to create better opportunities for people with disabilities in Nigeria and India. Subsequently, the challenges that organisations worldwide have encountered whilst improving the access to and knowledge of sexual and reproductive health and rights for people with disabilities are presented. Ways in which they managed to find solutions and the results achieved are reviewed. Some cases show the importance of a more personal approach whilst others emphasise the advantage of changing systems and policies. Different regions, types of disabilities and various SRHR-topics are reflected in these stories. All cases provide lessons learnt that contribute to a set of recommendations for improved responses. The closing chapter highlights the challenges, solutions, and ambitions that are presented and lead up to a concise overview of recommendations.  

Good practice examples include:

A shift in SRH programming (Nepal)

Breaking Barriers with performance art (Kenya)

Her Body, Her Rights (Ethiopia)

People with disabilities leading the way (Israel Family Planning Association)

Best Wishes for safe motherhood (Nepal)

It’s my body! (Bangladesh)

Calling a spade a spade (Netherlands)

Four joining forces (Colombia)

Change agents with a disability (Zimbabwe)

Tito’s privacy and rights (Argentina)

Sign language for service providers (Kenya)