The Social Networks of People with Intellectual Disability Living in the Community 12 Years after Resettlement from Long‐Stay Hospitals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities presents a major challenge to services. As part of a 12‐year follow up of people resettled from long‐stay hospitals, the size of 213 individuals’ social networks and the types of social support they received were investigated, as viewed by people with intellectual disabilities themselves. The types of support received in four different kinds of community accommodation were compared. Method Individuals were interviewed and their social support networks mapped using a Social Network Guide developed for the study. Descriptive statistics were generated and comparisons made using generalized linear modelling. Results The sample comprised 117 men (average age 51 years) and 96 women (average age 56 years). All but seven were White British, 92% were single and they had in general, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. The average network size was 22 members (range 3–51). The mean density was 0.5. A quarter of all network members were other service users with intellectual disabilities and a further 43% were staff. Only a third of the members were unrelated to learning disability services. In general, the main providers of both emotional and practical support were staff, although these relationships were less likely to be described as reciprocal. Other people with intellectual disabilities were the second most frequent providers of all types of support. People in small group homes, hostels and supported accommodation were significantly more likely to report close and companiable relationships than those in residential and nursing homes, but they also reported a greater proportion of critical behaviour. Conclusions The social networks revealed in this study are considerably larger than those of previous studies which have relied on staff reports, but findings about the generally limited social integration of people with intellectual disabilities are similar. A clearer policy and practice focus on the desirability of a range of different social contexts from which to derive potentially supportive network members is required so that people do not remain segregated in one area of life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».