Staff Stress and Morale in Community‐Based Settings for People with Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are no studies that have compared outcomes for staff in different types of supported accommodation for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. This study looked at stress, morale and intended job turnover in staff in two types of community‐based residential supports: non‐congregate settings where the minority of residents have challenging behaviour; and congregate settings where the majority of residents have challenging behaviour. Materials and methods A self‐completion survey questionnaire was used to collect information on the basic characteristics of staff, levels of staff stress, job satisfaction and propensity to leave their employment. Results One hundred and fifty‐seven questionnaires were returned from staff, the majority of whom were on fixed‐term contracts. Congregate settings were not associated with higher levels of stress as might be assumed. Overall, over a quarter of staff reached criterion on the General Health Questionnaire‐12 for experiencing emotional distress, and over a third were likely to actively seek new employment in the next year. The greatest perceived sources of stress were lack of resources and lack of staff support. The lowest level of satisfaction was with the rate of pay. Those in non‐congregate settings reported greater perceived stress because of lack of procedures to deal with challenging behaviour. Conclusions High levels of intended staff turnover may be more due to job insecurity and lack of support than service user challenging behaviour. Employers seeking to reduce turnover should pay attention to basic pay and conditions, as well as staff training in appropriate methods for dealing with challenging behaviour.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".