Living Safer Sexual Lives: Research and Action

Abstract

In spite of changes in the way people with learning disabilities are perceived, issues of sexuality and personal relationships remain particularly problematic for them. Living Safer Sexual Lives1 was a three‐year Australian action research project which sought to address how people with learning disabilities view these issues. During the first stage of the project, 25 people with learning disabilities told their life stories, with a focus on sexuality and human relationships, to experienced qualitative researchers. In the second stage of the project, these stories were used to provide people with learning disabilities, families and service providers with workshops and resources designed to help people with learning disabilities to live safer sexual lives.

Views and Experiences of People with Intellectual Disabilities Regarding Intimate Relationships: A Qualitative Metasynthesis

“…Fourteen studies were selected for the metasynthesis [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68], providing a total of 326 participants (167 women, 159 men), aged 18-78 years. There was a large heterosexual bias, with only five participants identifying as gay (one woman, four men), two of which described having had relationships with others of both genders.…”

“…Congruity between philosophical perspective and methodology utilized could not be established for a number of studies owing to a failure to identify the former [55,57,59,62,65,60]. Where the methodology used was not specified in two studies [55,59], correspondence with the authors established that thematic analysis had been used in both; the accessible format of the article, and the 'participatory action research' approach used, were the respective reasons the method of analysis had been omitted from the write up.…”

“…Where the methodology used was not specified in two studies [55,59], correspondence with the authors established that thematic analysis had been used in both; the accessible format of the article, and the 'participatory action research' approach used, were the respective reasons the method of analysis had been omitted from the write up. Whether study five's methodology had been appropriate for the question remains unclear, since the method of data collection had also been unconventional.…”

“…All but two studies [63,67] did this only partially or not at all, which is striking considering the many challenges that occur in conducting qualitative research with PWID, such as pressure to respond and inability to express feelings (Nind, 2008). A similarly alarming finding was that in nearly half of the studies there was no mention of ethical approval or consideration [57][58][59][60][61]63]. …”

“…In another [59], the focus of the conclusion was the research process itself (participatory action research) rather than the qualitative findings. That many of the studies required participants to be identified by caregivers [56,[61][62][63]65] meant recruitment strategy was often a limitation.…”