Search

Background: Evidence suggests that parents with intellectual disabilities can be "good enough" parents with appropriate support that focuses on the whole family. This paper brings together theories of vulnerability with an ethics of care approach to reflect on challenges for practitioners in supporting parents, drawing upon data from a study carried out in Scotland. Method: An online survey was administered to practitioners in three settings, and follow-up interviews were carried out with key informants. Results: Pockets of good practice existed but a number of barriers to supporting families remained. These related to a lack of accessible information, difficulties in identifying and engaging with families at an early stage and poor joint working across agencies. Conclusion: The study concludes by arguing that practitioners' constructions of families as "vulnerable" reflects negatively on their perceived capacity to parent, creating further barriers in accessing appropriate support and reducing expectations of success.

There are increasing numbers of parents with a learning disability living in the community although the exact numbers are unknown. Existing research suggests that this group of parents faces disadvantage and discrimination on a number of levels. This study reports on the findings of a small pilot study that examined the lived experience of five parents with a learning disability living in Scotland. The research focused particularly on the role of advocacy in supporting parents. The study found that the parents faced a number of challenges not only in relation to their parenting role but also in the circumstances characterising their lives more generally. Parents were likely to be socially isolated and had limited support networks. Support services did not always meet the needs of parents with a learning disability, and joint working between agencies appeared to be particularly problematic. The study concludes by suggesting that advocacy can be effective in supporting parents to have their voices heard.

Citizenship is gaining currency in health and social care internationally as a way of making sense of the lived experiences of people with major life disruptions who face exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination, but the concept is often contested, poorly defined and understood. This paper charts the development of an empirical model of citizenship within Scotland, UK. A mixed‐method, community‐based participatory research approach using 10 focus groups (n = 77), concept‐mapping exercises (n = 45) and statement clarity and relevant ratings (n = 242) was used to develop a model of citizenship that is grounded in the lived experience of participants, which is absent from current conceptualisations of citizenship. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis revealed five core domains emerging from our work: 'building relationships', 'autonomy and acceptance', 'access to services and supports', 'shared values and social roles' and 'civic rights and responsibilities' representing the personal meanings of citizenship for participants. We argue that the value of this model is that it is draws upon the personal understandings and experiences of participants who emphasised the 'banal ordinariness' of its core elements. We suggest that the model makes an original contribution by clearly illustrating the practical applicability of citizenship as a concept; thus, enhancing existing theories of citizenship. Our model highlights the interplay between the relational and structural aspects of citizenship and acknowledges the barriers that marginalised groups face in claiming their citizenship rights. It offers a call to action for policy makers and practitioners to set goals that contribute to the social inclusion of those who have experienced major life disruptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizenship has been promoted within mental health for several decades however, its application in the field of mental health policy and practice is relatively novel. The voices of people who experience mental health problems (MHPs) are often absent in ongoing discourses about citizenship. To explore how adults with experience of MHPs and other life disruptions identify potential barriers to citizenship. A community based participatory research approach was adopted with peer researchers. Six focus groups (N = 40) using semi-structured interviews were conducted, consisting of participants who had experience of MHPs and other life disruption(s) within the last 5 years. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVIVO using a thematic approach. Three major themes associated with participants lived experiences of barriers to citizenship were identified: 'stigmatisation (internal & external) creates further divide'; 'being socially excluded leads to isolation'; and 'a sense of difference (as perceived by the self and others)'. Those who have experienced major life disruption(s) face multi-level barriers to citizenship. An awareness of such barriers has important implications for mental health research, policy and practice. Citizenship-oriented implementation strategies that aim to address multi-level barriers merit further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of integrated working across health and social care has featured strongly in recent policy directives in both England and Scotland. This is part of a wider agenda of partnership and collaboration, with a range of options from the creation of unified structures as in the care trusts in England to localized arrangements for joint working between individual professionals. This article presents a detailed matrix of drivers and barriers to integrated working which has been developed through a number of case studies of community care practice pursued as part of work undertaken for the Joint Future Group of the Scottish Executive. Drivers and barriers in three key areas are highlighted: national policy frameworks, the local planning context, and operational factors. It is anticipated that the matrix should provide a useful framework for the detailed scrutiny and operationalization of integrated working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]