Home Sharing and People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Qualitative Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Home sharing is a fast‐growing residential option in British Columbia (BC), Canada; yet little empirical research exists specific to home sharing. In BC, home sharing is defined as a living situation when one or more adults with an intellectual disability share a home with another person or unrelated family who is paid to provide residential and, at times, additional support as needed. The authors report the findings of a qualitative study exploring home sharing and the factors that contribute to quality home sharing. Guided by interpretive description, a qualitative method, individual interviews exploring participants’ experiences of home sharing were conducted with 68 individuals (22 individuals with ID, 33 home share providers, and 13 family members). Constant comparison was used to analyze the data. Key factors to perceived instances of successful home sharing included (1) finding a good match between the individual with ID and the provider, (2) engaging in proactive planning, (3) ensuring effective supports to maintain the sustainability of the home share that promotes balancing the independence of and support for the individual, and (4) being attuned to the relational dynamics among all stakeholders. The findings have implications for implementing policies and practices pertaining home sharing. The authors conclude that emphasis should be put on flexible and appropriate residential supports that address the person's changing needs where the home share relationship facilitates the individual's healthy lifestyle, well‐being, independence, valued social roles, and social inclusion. Additionally, a clearly articulated system of monitoring to ensure safety should be part of all home share arrangements subject to the wishes of the individual with ID.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".