A mixed methods study of children's social workers' decision-making relating to families headed by parents with intellectual disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<p>People with intellectual disabilities (ID) have faced prejudice throughout history. The evolution of human and civil rights particularly pertaining to individuals with disabilities led to dramatic revision of governmental policy. People with ID are better supported in many areas of their lives. However, as parents, they experience disproportionately high rates of child removal compared to other groups. A three-stage mixed methods approach was used to investigate decision-making by children’s social workers (CSWs) in England relating to cases concerning the children of parents with ID (PWID). The aim was to identify the components of decision-making and formulate an empirically-based theory of how safeguarding concerning the children of PWID is considered and addressed. Data was collected from 33 serious case reviews involving children of PWID, a modified factorial survey with 191 participating CSWs, and a series of focus group discussions with CSWs. Qualitative data was analysed using the Framework Method and the Constant Comparison Method, and the quantitative data was fitted into a generalised ordinal logistic regression model. The findings indicate that a range of factors contribute to decision-making. Families often presented with multiple vulnerabilities rather than ID alone and had complex support needs. Factors featuring to various degrees in decision making include availability of time, specialist resources, and professional expertise; parental engagement and their wider social and familial relationships; and children’s resilience and the presence and readiness of their own support and safeguarding structures. The pertinence of parental ID (PID) to CSW assessment appeared to be relative to the other characteristics of a child safeguarding case. In safeguarding scenarios where PID was accompanied by less risky factors, PID increased the likelihood of CSWs making an assessment of higher risk. Where PID presented alongside more overtly risky factors, it did not contribute significantly to a higher assessment of risk. The study concludes that discriminatory practice by CSWs towards PWID does not appear to be a direct factor in the removal of children.</p>
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 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 | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».