Individualized Apartment Accommodation for People With Intellectual Disability: Protocol for a Qualitative Study Examining the Well-Being and Support Outcomes Linking Housing and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the outcomes associated with both receiving and providing support to people with intellectual disability in specific settings can facilitate the alignment of health providers, community care providers, architects, and urban planners to strengthen levels of autonomy and community participation of people with intellectual disability living in the community. This study explores the impact of providing support (available 24 hours a day) for people with intellectual disability in a high-density apartment. It seeks the perspectives of people with intellectual disability who have moved into an apartment from a group home (where 4-6 people with disability live), their families, and support staff. It will enable comparison between two models of supported accommodation, group homes and individualized apartments, in a community setting. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to explore the impact of an individualized apartment model of supported accommodation in a high-density setting on the well-being, autonomy, and participation of people with intellectual disability living and receiving support; the experience of providing care or support; and how this setting impacts the logistics of how quality support is provided. METHODS: Qualitative research methods were employed as the primary means of collecting and analyzing data. There are two main sources of data in this study: (1) semistructured interviews with participants in up to 3 waves (pre, post 1, and post 2) and (2) pre- and postoccupancy evaluation data on the design, layout, and location details of the built environments. Coded interview data will be paired with pre- and postoccupancy evaluations of the two accommodation settings. RESULTS: As of May 2020, we have recruited 55 participants. There have been 96 interviews conducted in 2 waves with people who have moved into supported accommodation, families, and staff. Collected data are currently being analyzed. We expect the results of the trial to be published in a peer-reviewed journal in late 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This paper sets out a study of an alternative housing and support model for people with intellectual disability. It will capture personal experiences of people with intellectual disability receiving support in an apartment compared to their experiences in a group home. It will also capture the experiences of support staff working in the new setting and reveal how this differs from a group home setting. The inclusion of pre (group home) and post (apartment integrated into a community setting) measures addresses evaluative and comparative questions around the nature and impacts of the small-scale apartment and support model for both those who live and receive support, and those who support them. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18248.
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 | 0.070 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.007 |
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".