Learning disability: Experiences of health transition into specialist learning disability adult services and communication within mental health settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall aim of the thesis portfolio was to explore the experiences of learning disability mental health services. This was explored in two parts: by conducting a systematic review to understand the experiences of communication within mental health settings; and by exploring parental transition experiences into adult learning disability services from learning disability children and adolescent mental health services through an empirical study. The systematic review employed a thematic analysis to synthesise 19 peer-reviewed empirical studies and one study from the grey literature. All studies utilised a qualitative design method. The result of the systematic review revealed four superordinate themes: ‘the need for inclusive communication within care’, ‘relating with one another’, ‘empowered vs disempowered’, and ‘delivery of care’. The review highlighted how adapting communication helped improve service experience and inclusivity to care and made services more accessible. It also showed areas of failings in communication experience. These related to service users and families not feeling informed and listened to, and healthcare professionals’ difficulties in understanding and communicating with service users. The Empirical research utilised Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to analyse data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four parents of individuals diagnosed with a learning disability who were receiving care in the adult community learning disability team. Findings revealed three superordinate themes: ‘impact of transition on sense of control’, ‘making sense of challenges experienced’ and ‘the experience of service provision’. The findings highlighted the experience of parents of feeling unheard and uninformed during the transition process and showed the difficulties experienced during decision-making processes following transition. It also revealed suggestions of how services can improve to better support the transition process. 3 The findings from both papers signified the highly desired need for the voices of service users and families to be represented in their ca
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".