Care Relationships Between Support Staff and Adults With a Learning Disability in Long-Term Social Care Residential Settings in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Literature Review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: Research exploring care relationships between support staff (e.g., support workers) and adults with a learning disability in long-term social care residential settings in the United Kingdom is relatively neglected. This has potential theoretical and care practice implications. Objectives: This study sought to synthesise relevant literature, expand knowledge, and identify directions for future research. We investigated five questions about care relationships and what makes them positive, exploring definitions of care relationships, relational practices and processes, barriers and facilitators to good care relationships, the impact of relationships, and restoration of disrupted relationships. Methods: Following protocol registration in PROSPERO, a systematic literature review was conducted in June–July 2021. The review was informed by official guidelines and focused on the United Kingdom, covering 41 years of relevant work. Twelve databases and five websites were searched, and experts were contacted. Forty-five reports were included and synthesised using the narrative synthesis framework. Findings: Definitions of care relationships revolved around friendship, equality, professionalism, and power. Practices and processes underlying positive relationships included knowing the person, setting boundaries, and shifting power dynamics. Barriers to positive care relationships included staff interactional patterns, attributions, and staff dilemmas, whilst facilitators included receiving training and using communication tools. Good care relationships were key to effective support and ways to restore disrupted relationships included receiving input from systemic therapy. Limitations: Literature was limited for certain review questions and more extensive for others. Only a few reports addressed care relationships as such with the rest focusing on communication or interactions. Time constraints prevented us from including more kinds of reports. The voice of residents was limited. Implications: We hope that this review contributes to and expands knowledge around care relationships and shapes directions for future research. Findings can be used by support staff, service managers, residents, trainers, advocates, regulators, and researchers.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle