Community and cluster centre residential services for adults with intellectual disability: long‐term results from an Australian‐matched sample

Young, Louise

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00788.x

Cited by 52 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…U dve studije je ustanovlјeno pogoršanje problema u ponašanju, koja nisu bila statistički značajna, dok se u preostalim studijama nije pokazala značajna promena. Pojedini autori su istakli da su, iako je nivo problematičnog ponašanja ostao isti, otkrili promene u prirodi problematičnog ponašanja nakon preselјenja iz institucije u otvorenu zajednicu (Young, & Ashman, 2004;Golding, Emerson, & Thornton, 2005;Young, 2006). Suprotno ovim tvrdnjama, Simons ističe da postoji bitna razlika između faktora koji utiču na ispolјavanje problema u ponašanju i onih koji su potrebni da se takvo ponašanje održi i tvrdi da faktori sredine mogu uticati na učestalost i izraženost problema u ponašanju (Symons, 2005).…”

Section: Diskusijaunclassified

Factors of behavioural problems and types of housing of persons with intellectual disability

Tamaš¹,

Glumbić²

2015

Spec eduk i rehabilitacija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Diskusijaunclassified

Factors of behavioural problems and types of housing of persons with intellectual disability

Tamaš¹,

Glumbić²

2015

Spec eduk i rehabilitacija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One study by Young in 2006 of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability showed increased adaptive behaviour, choice-making and life quality in a group followed up after discharge from institutional living into a community setting. 6 The corollary has also been studied and Rutter has written extensively on the detrimental effects of institutionalisation. 7,8 The report itself cites a number of studies to support the case for community living both from a quality of life and costeffectiveness point of view.…”

Section: Deinstitutionalisation Is Generally a Good Thingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deinstitutionalisation – time to move on to legislation?

Carrigan¹

2011

Ir. j. psychol. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The report represents a significant step forward in promoting the deinstitutionalisation agenda in Ireland, with its core recommendations being that all individuals with a disability living in 'congregated settings' (a residential setting where the person lives with 10 or more people) should be moved into the community and that the institutional settings in which they live should be closed.The General summary of the reportThe report has 31 recommendations. These describe a new model of support for people with disabilities in the community. The plan is to move individuals from institutional care to dispersed forms of housing in ordinary communities. The housing would be provided by local authorities and the individuals would access mainstream health and social services such as GP, home help and public health nursing. Other specialised services and hospital services would be provided based on individualised assessments.Ten of the recommendations directly refer to the financial resources required for the successful implementation of the report through funding support structures, purchasing and building accommodation and the provision of extra social welfare benefits for the group. It also notes that the disability budgets have been "reduced by a minimum of 5% in the period 2008-2010 and there is now less flexibility within budgets to fund further movement into the community within existing resources". 5 Deinstitutionalisation is generally a good thingCertainly the evidence internationally is that, in general, individuals with disabilities do better outside the institutional setting. One study by Young in 2006 of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability showed increased adaptive behaviour, choice-making and life quality in a group followed up after discharge from institutional living into a community setting. 6 The corollary has also been studied and Rutter has written extensively on the detrimental effects of institutionalisation. 7,8 The report itself cites a number of studies to support the case for community living both from a quality of life and costeffectiveness point of view. 9-12 However a study by Kozma, Mansell and Beadle-Brown is also mentioned in the report. In it 67 papers published between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. In seven out of 10 areas (community presence and participation, social networks and friendships, family contact, self-determination and choice, quality of life, adaptive behaviour, user and family views and satisfaction) the majority of studies showed that community living was superior to institutional care.In three areas (challenging behaviour, psychotropic medication and health, risks and mortality) research reported mixed or worse results. 13 People with higher support needs -whether because of the nature of their intellectual and physical disabilities, their challenging behaviour or social impairment, often experience less good outcomes in the community than people who are more independent. 14 In the general context of deinstitutionalisation, they are also typically the...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, housing is an important determinant of mental health for people with intellectual disabilities (McGlaughlin 2004). A number of studies have addressed the outcome of different types of housing for people with psychiatric disabilities (Hansson et al 2002;Kyle and Dunn 2008;Nelson et al 1998;Oliver and Mohamad 1992) and intellectual disabilities (Emerson 2004;McConkey 2007;Perry and Felce 2003;Young 2006). Studies indicate limitations in community-based housing opportunities for people with psychiatric disabilities and conclude that homelessness is all too commonly experienced by people discharged from hospital wards (Burt et al 2007;Forchuk et al 2006;Kuno et al 2000;Nordentoft et al 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support in Housing: A Comparison Between People with Psychiatric Disabilities and People with Intellectual Disabilities

Umb‐Carlsson

Jansson

2009

Community Ment Health J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this study was to compare type of housing and support in housing in two groups (people with psychiatric disabilities and people with intellectual disabilities) typically dependent on support in everyday life. A second objective was to examine whether type of housing and support in housing were related to gender within the two groups. Information was obtained by available questionnaire reports provided by staff members. The results indicate unequal accessibility of support in housing in relation to the two groups. Moreover, the findings suggest that type of disability is a more determining factor than gender regarding support in housing.

show abstract

Community and cluster centre residential services for adults with intellectual disability: long‐term results from an Australian‐matched sample

Cited by 52 publications

References 20 publications

Factors of behavioural problems and types of housing of persons with intellectual disability

Factors of behavioural problems and types of housing of persons with intellectual disability

Deinstitutionalisation – time to move on to legislation?

Support in Housing: A Comparison Between People with Psychiatric Disabilities and People with Intellectual Disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About