24 小时寄宿环境与外展环境下轻度智障成人的家庭社会资本比较

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1111/jppi.12507
Sanne A. H. Giesbers, Tess Tournier, Alexander H. C. Hendriks, Kathleen van Loon, Vicky Quinet, Richard P. Hastings, Andrew Jahoda, Petri J. C. M. Embregts
{"title":"24 小时寄宿环境与外展环境下轻度智障成人的家庭社会资本比较","authors":"Sanne A. H. Giesbers,&nbsp;Tess Tournier,&nbsp;Alexander H. C. Hendriks,&nbsp;Kathleen van Loon,&nbsp;Vicky Quinet,&nbsp;Richard P. Hastings,&nbsp;Andrew Jahoda,&nbsp;Petri J. C. M. Embregts","doi":"10.1111/jppi.12507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To 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 (<i>n</i> = 29) versus outreach support settings (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities","volume":"21 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jppi.12507","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Family based social capital of adults with mild intellectual disabilities supported in 24-hour residential settings compared to outreach settings\",\"authors\":\"Sanne A. H. Giesbers,&nbsp;Tess Tournier,&nbsp;Alexander H. C. Hendriks,&nbsp;Kathleen van Loon,&nbsp;Vicky Quinet,&nbsp;Richard P. Hastings,&nbsp;Andrew Jahoda,&nbsp;Petri J. C. M. Embregts\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jppi.12507\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>To 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 (<i>n</i> = 29) versus outreach support settings (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"21 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jppi.12507\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jppi.12507\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jppi.12507","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为增强(轻度)智障人士的社会融入,政策往往侧重于增加他们的非正式支持网络。家庭成员,主要是父母,往往是轻度智障人士非正式支持的主要提供者。以往的研究表明,社会资本作为一个理论框架,在研究轻度智障者家庭关系中的支持时非常有用,并表明轻度智障者以家庭为基础的社会资本的若干特征取决于支持和生活安排。然而,现有关于支持和生活安排的研究并未考虑到以家庭为基础的社会资本的主要特征(即粘合和桥接社会资本、互惠)。因此,本研究旨在考察在 24 小时住宿环境(n = 29)和外展支持环境(n = 45)中接受支持的轻度智障人士的家庭社会资本。研究人员采用智力障碍家庭网络法(FNM-ID),对所有参与者的家庭支持关系进行了个别访谈。通过社会网络分析和分组比较对数据进行了定量分析。在社会网络测量方面,两个亚组之间没有发现明显的差异:两个亚组在社会资本的纽带和桥梁经验方面没有差异,在家庭关系的互惠经验方面也没有差异。然而,在家庭网络的构成方面却发现了一些差异。外展支持环境中的轻度智障人士更有可能将子女纳入其重要的家庭网络,并为父母提供支持,而 24 小时护理环境中的参与者则更有可能将大家庭作为重要的家庭网络成员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Family based social capital of adults with mild intellectual disabilities supported in 24-hour residential settings compared to outreach settings

To 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
What Would Have Helped People With Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities in the UK During COVID-19? Talk-LD and Talk-LD+: A pilot trial of school-based interventions to challenge discrimination and promote inclusion Moving toward a time-based and balanced quality of life Evaluation of an Australian community-based model of care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities undergoing procedures under sedation After us, together with us: Quality of life in adults with disabilities in an inclusive and sustainable future
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1