MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118072165 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4215

The Paradox of Inclusion: Older Adults With Learning Disabilities in Policy and Practice

2025· article· en· W7118072165 on OpenAlexaff
Anastasiia Brus, Judith Sixsmith, Joe Tai, Darren Chadwick, Mei Lan Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternalismReflexivityAutonomyVoluntary sectorInclusion (mineral)Thematic analysisLearning disabilityBureaucracyIdentity (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As part of the UK IncludeAge Study, we explore how policy, service structures, and organisational practices shape opportunities for the inclusion of older adults with learning disabilities. Despite policy frameworks promoting integration, significant barriers persist that paradoxically reinforce exclusion. The aim was to examine these tensions and identify pathways for systemic change. Our approach involved conducting ten semi-structured interviews with representatives from local Older Adult Social Care departments (n = 5) and voluntary or charitable organisations (n = 5) across England and Scotland. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis to identify recurring themes and contradictions in organisational approaches to inclusion. Substantial and intersecting barriers were identified. The accessibility of information remains a major challenge, with complex language, bureaucratic procedures, and poor dissemination limiting access to services. Tools intended to foster inclusion often perpetuated exclusion. Staff reluctance to address sensitive issues created silences around important areas of life, while paternalistic attitudes framed older adults with learning disabilities as “child-like.” Though intended as protection, such practices restricted autonomy and increased dependency. Policy programmes were frequently designed without the involvement of older adults with learning disabilities, resulting in fragmented provision and the need for retrospective “inclusive” fixes. Limited facilitators, such as staff training, voluntary sector initiatives, and community collaborations, were inconsistent and resource-dependent. Findings reveal a paradox of inclusion: older adults with learning disabilities are selectively recognised, experiencing conditional rather than full citizenship. Meaningful change requires embedding accessibility, dignity, and identity at the policy-making stage to ensure genuine participation in community life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.032
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0020.026
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207