Practice leadership and active support in residential services for people with intellectual disabilities: an exploratory study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that a key factor determining the quality of active support was 'practice leadership' - provided by the first-line manager to focus staff attention and develop staff skills in providing direct support to enable people with intellectual disabilities to have a good quality of life. This exploratory study focused on what levels of practice leadership were found and its role in explaining variation in active support. METHOD: Relevant aspects of management, including practice leadership, were assessed by questionnaires administered to staff in residential settings alongside observational measures of active support and resident engagement in meaningful activity. Relationships between these variables were explored using regression and post hoc group comparisons. RESULTS: There was wide variation, with average levels of practice leadership being low, though improving over the period studied. Practice leadership had a significant impact on active support, but was fully mediated by the effect of quality of management. When the quality of management was higher better practice leadership did produce a significant difference in active support. However, higher quality of management on its own did not produce better active support. CONCLUSIONS: A number of limitations are acknowledged and further research is required. Practice leadership appears to be an important factor in enabling staff to provide active support but as part of generally good management. Given the rather low levels found, attention needs to be given to the training, career development and support of practice leaders and also to how to protect their time from their many other responsibilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it