2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2008.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Institutional care for people with disabilities in Taiwan: A national report between 2002 and 2007

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A basis for further discussion of the pros and cons of institutional care versus community care for people with disabilities in Taiwan was provided by Yen et al [35 ]. .…”
Section: Social Policy For People With Intellectual Disabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A basis for further discussion of the pros and cons of institutional care versus community care for people with disabilities in Taiwan was provided by Yen et al [35 ]. .…”
Section: Social Policy For People With Intellectual Disabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, as noted in both Power (2008) and Chou et al (2008), Western countries strongly favour the deinstitutionalisation of adults with ID, where the provision of support to live in their own homes within the community has become a mainstream policy. Despite this trend, the number of people with intellectual (and other) disabilities receiving institutional care and services in Taiwan is still on the rise (Yen et al 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The caregiving provided to individuals with an ID is multifaceted and long term [ 22 ]. Research indicates that gender inequalities, old age, lack of companionship, and low socioeconomic status increase the risk of requiring long-term care [ 23 , 24 ]. Common challenges in long-term care include physical function, cognition, mental health, associated harms (e.g., accidents, abuse, and neglect), peer victimization (PV), implementation of acute care, mortality, and expenditures [ 25 , 26 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%