Search

Purpose: Stigmatisation can negatively affect opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in society. Stereotyping, a first step in the process of stigmatisation, has been insufficiently explored for people with intellectual disabilities. This study examined the general public's set of stereotypes that is saliently attributed to people with intellectual disabilities as well as the relationship of these stereotypes with discriminatory intentions and familiarity., Materials and Methods: A mixed-method cross-sectional survey within a representative sample of the Dutch population ( n  = 892) was used. Stereotypes were analysed with factor analysis of a trait-rating scale, and qualitative analysis of an open-ended question. The relationship between stereotypes and discrimination as well as familiarity with people with intellectual disabilities was explored through multivariate analyses., Results and Conclusions: Four stereotype-factors appeared: "friendly", "in need of help", "unintelligent", and "nuisance". Stereotypes in the "nuisance" factor seemed unimportant due to their infrequent report in the open-ended question. "Friendly", "in need of help", "unintelligent" were found to be salient stereotypes of people with intellectual disabilities due to their frequent report. The stereotypes did not relate to high levels of explicit discrimination. Yet due to the both positive and negative valence of the stereotypes, subtle forms of discrimination may be expected such as limited opportunities for choice and self-determination. This may affect opportunities for rehabilitation and might be challenged by protest-components within anti-stigma efforts.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThere is currently sparse input for anti-stigma campaigns regarding people with intellectual disabilities.Anti-stigma interventions may benefit from adopting protest elements: education of the general public about inequalities that are experienced by people with intellectual disabilities.Especially support staff should be informed about the experienced and/or anticipated stigma of people with intellectual disabilities.As a way of opposing stigma, support staff should empower people for example by conducting strategies to disclose their (intellectual) disabilities.People with intellectual disabilities can challenge stigma by learning to tell a positive narrative on the lives they lead, using their strengths and coping with their limitations.

Care providers are key agents in the lives of individuals with an intellectual disability (ID). The quality of their support can be affected by manifestations of stigma. This scoping review was conducted to explore studies that provide indications of care providers' stigmatization of people with ID. Methods: A structured search was made in four databases to identify relevant studies in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Records were systematically and independently screened by the researchers. Results: The 40 articles included in this review were mainly conducted in Western countries and used Likert-type self-report measures of explicit attitudes. Stigmatization seemed more distinct concerning people with high support needs. The few studies on public stigma preliminary suggest that staff may also stigmatize people with ID based on other social identities. Regarding the support of structural stigma, staff reported skepticism regarding community inclusion for people with high support needs, and tended to be ambivalent about the protection-or-empowerment balance in the support of people with ID. Possible indications of stigmatization regarding sexuality were found on specific issues, such as self-determination and privacy. Agreement of staff with certain rights did not necessarily lead to staff acting in accordance with such rights. Conclusion: Indications of stigmatization of people with ID by care providers were found. Stigmatizing attitudes might affect the quality of care providers' support. Potential leads for future interventions concern creating awareness, sharing power, addressing diagnostic overshadowing, and providing explicit policy translations. Directions for future research concern strengthening the methodology of studies and enriching the studied topics., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors., (© 2019. The British Society of Developmental Disabilities.)

Background: Equal access to mainstream healthcare services for people with intellectual disabilities (ID) still requires attention. Although recent studies suggest that health professionals hold positive attitudes towards people with ID, stigmatising attitudes may influence their efforts to serve people with ID in community healthcare practice. To stimulate inclusion in mainstream healthcare services, this systematic review focussed on barriers in attitudes of mainstream health professionals towards people with ID., Method: Five electronic databases were systematically searched and references in full text articles were checked for studies published in the English language between January 1994 and January 2016. A social-psychological triad of cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions of stigmatising attitudes is used to structure and discuss the results., Results: The literature search generated 2190 records with 30 studies that passed our exclusion criteria. Studies were mostly cross-sectional and of moderate quality. With respect to stigma, a lack of familiarity with and knowledge about people with ID was found. ID was considered as a stable condition not under personal control. Moreover, mainstream health professionals had either low or high expectations of the capabilities of people with ID. Professionals reported stress, lack of confidence, fear and anxiety, a tendency to treat people with ID differently and a lack of supporting autonomy., Conclusions: Stigmatising attitudes towards people with ID appeared to be present among mainstream health professionals. This might affect the ongoing challenges regarding inclusion in mainstream healthcare services. To facilitate inclusion in mainstream healthcare services, it is recommended to include contact and collaboration with experts-by-experience in education programs of health professionals. Future research should progress beyond descriptive accounts of stigma towards exploring relationships between cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions as pointers for intervention. Finally, inclusion would benefit from an understanding of 'equal' treatment that means reasonable adjustments instead of undifferentiated treatment., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research published by MENCAP and International Association of theScientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disibilities and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Children of divorced parents have an increased risk of a variety of problems in comparison to children from intact families. Therefore, several intervention programs have been developed directed at children of divorced parents. Yet, empirical data on the effectiveness of these interventions are limited. This study evaluated the school-based, child-directed prevention program Kids In Divorce Situations (KIDS) using a randomized controlled trial. The sample consisted of 156 children randomly assigned at the school level into an experimental (80 children) and control condition (76 children). In addition, 131 mothers and 76 fathers participated in the study. Four assessments took place: a pretest, a posttest, and two follow-up assessments conducted 6 months and 1 year after finishing KIDS. Latent growth analyses demonstrated that the intervention significantly reduced child-reported emotional problems and enhanced child-reported communication with the father and mother-reported communication with the child. The effect sizes ranged from .30-.63. Few moderation effects of gender, time since divorce, or perceived parental conflict on the intervention effects were found. After parental divorce, a limited school-based intervention for children can be efficacious in promoting children's emotional well-being and parent-child communication., ((c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).)