Search

Additional file 3. Pictures of co-creation session 2.

Additional file 6. Reflection form of researchers.

Additional file 5. Pictures of co-creation session 6.

Additional file 8. COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist.

Additional file 4. Pictures of co-creation session 3.

Additional file 9. GRIPP2 Reporting Checklist - Long Form.

Additional file 2. Informed consent forms of adolescents with ID.

Additional file 7. Description of the results of the adolescents' process evaluations per session and per group.

Additional file 1. Process evaluation forms of adolescents with ID.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Odds ratios for comparison of adults with intellectual disabilities and the general population adults for psychotropics with a significant interaction between group and age. Table S2. Odds ratios for comparison of adults with intellectual disabilities and the general population adults for antiepileptics by neighbourhood deprivation (SIMD quintile). Figure S1. Influence of neighbourhood deprivation (SIMD quintile) on groups’ MERs for predicted probability of being an antiepileptics.

Despite a wide range of teacher training literacy interventions in South Africa at foundation phase level, literacy results have declined according to local and international tests. This research outlines the basis of these interventions and then compares them with a new teacher training intervention based on what has been called “the four resources model” (Luke and Freebody, 1990). This intervention, designed by a specialised teacher trainer and offered by a Western Cape based NGO, is currently taking place in some schools that have achieved poor literacy results at foundation phase and is sponsored by the Western Cape Education Department. The research outlines what an intervention based on the four resources model involves, where the approach is compatible with the CAPS specifications for literacy teaching and where it diverges from the CAPS, and explores how foundation phase teachers at one school respond to the intervention in their teaching. This programme has not yet been researched and is the only teacher intervention programme in South Africa that is based on the four resources model. It differs from other interventions because it emphasises the importance of meaning making and of writing (particularly shared writing) in literacy development, as well as the role of higher order thinking, as opposed to decoding and comprehension which are emphasised in the literacy curriculum and pedagogy and in other teacher intervention programmes. Data was collected through observations of teacher workshops and classroom visits of the teacher trainer, teacher trainer interviews, classroom observations and teacher interviews. Refracted through the reflections of the teacher trainer on her decades of experience in literacy training and on the current programme design, the analysis probes the value of experimenting with an enlarged understanding of literacy as outlined in the four resources model. It charts the ways in which teachers' understanding of literacy pedagogies slowly changes and adapts, revealing how teachers start to see the possibilities of creative engagement with text types, critical thinking, engagement with children's prior knowledge and linguistic resources. While the hope is that the intervention will improve tests scores, the research was not able to verify this since the timing of the intervention does not correlate with the systemic testing schedule and release of results, nor the next international benchmark tests. The research reveals that the four resources model intervention does emphasise higher order thinking skills, in contrast to other interventions, and that this could have a positive effect on the PIRLS tests results, in the schools where it is offered. It also shows that there are limitations to the four resources model, in that it does not address the inclusion of multimodal pedagogies nor does it consider the realities of multilingual classes in South Africa.

Background:\ud There are well established national and local policies championing the need to provide dignity in care for older people. We have evidence as to what older people and their relatives understand by the term ‘dignified care’ but less insight into the perspectives of staff regarding their understanding of this key policy objective.\ud \ud Methods:\ud A survey of health and social care professionals across four NHS Trusts in England to investigate how dignified care for older people is understood and delivered. We received 192 questionnaires of the 650 distributed.\ud \ud Results:\ud Health and social care professionals described the meaning of dignified care in terms of their relationships with patients: ‘respect’ (47%), ‘being treated as an individual’ (40%), ‘being involved in decision making’ (26%) and ‘privacy’ (24%). ‘Being treated as an individual’ and ‘maintaining privacy’ were ranked as the most important components of dignified care. Physical caring tasks such as ‘helping with washing, dressing and feeding’ were rarely described as being part of dignified care and attributed much less importance than the relational components.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud Dignity in care is a concept with multiple meanings. Older people and their relatives focus upon the importance of providing physical care when describing what this means to them. Our participants focussed upon the relational aspects of care delivery rather than care itself. Proactive measures are therefore required to ensure that the physical aspects of care are met for all older people receiving care in NHS trusts.