Psychologists' perspectives on supported decision making in Ireland.
UNCRPD
intellectual disabilities
mental capacity
supported decision making
thematic analysis
Journal
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR
ISSN: 1365-2788
Titre abrégé: J Intellect Disabil Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9206090
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
04
04
2019
revised:
20
12
2019
accepted:
23
12
2019
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
16
7
2021
entrez:
25
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A new legal capacity act was introduced in Ireland in 2015. This study aimed to identify and critically examine key issues in the area of decision-making capacity from the perspective of psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. A qualitative exploratory approach was employed, and the study was positioned in a social constructionist framework. Purposive and snowballing sampling methods were used to recruit 15 clinical psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. Data were collected with the use of individual semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using a model of thematic analysis. Six themes were identified: (1) a presumption of capacity but a culture of incapacity, (2) supporting decision making as a process, (3) authenticity of decision making, (4) need for support and training, (5) contributions of psychology and (6) the way forward. Participants described that people with intellectual disabilities were often excluded from decision-making processes. They welcomed the functional approach to decision making, considered substituted decision making to be necessary within a support framework and described supporting decision making as a process. Systemic, resource and attitudinal challenges were identified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A new legal capacity act was introduced in Ireland in 2015. This study aimed to identify and critically examine key issues in the area of decision-making capacity from the perspective of psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability.
METHODS
A qualitative exploratory approach was employed, and the study was positioned in a social constructionist framework. Purposive and snowballing sampling methods were used to recruit 15 clinical psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. Data were collected with the use of individual semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using a model of thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Six themes were identified: (1) a presumption of capacity but a culture of incapacity, (2) supporting decision making as a process, (3) authenticity of decision making, (4) need for support and training, (5) contributions of psychology and (6) the way forward.
CONCLUSIONS
Participants described that people with intellectual disabilities were often excluded from decision-making processes. They welcomed the functional approach to decision making, considered substituted decision making to be necessary within a support framework and described supporting decision making as a process. Systemic, resource and attitudinal challenges were identified.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
234-245Informations de copyright
© 2020 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Arstein-Kerlsake A. & Flynn E. (2016) The General Comment on Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A roadmap for equality before the law. The International Journal of Human Rights 20, 471-490.
Baum S. & Lyngaard H. (2006) ID: A systemic approach. Karnac, London.
Beamer S., Brookes M. & M. (2001) Making decisions, best practice and new ideas for supporting people with high support needs to make decisions. Values into Action, London.
Bigby C., Whiteside M. & Douglas J. (2019) Providing support for decision making to adults with intellectual disability: Perspectives of family members and workers in disability support services. Journal of Intellectual Disability & Developmental Delay 44, 396-409.
Braun V. & Clark V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77-101.
Braun V. & Clark V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In: APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (eds H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf & K. J. Sher), pp. 57-71. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US.
Browning M., Bigby C. & Douglas J. (2014) Supported decision making: Understanding how its conceptual link to legal capacity is influencing the development of practice. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 1, 34-45.
Cronin J. & Bourke J. (2017) Value for money? An examination of the relationship between need and cost in intellectual disability services. Health and Social Care in the Community 25, 1227-1236.
Creswell J. W. (2012) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage, Thousand Oakes, CA.
Department of Justice (2015) Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act. Dublin, Ireland: The Stationery Office. Available at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=30677&ad=1
Fisher P., Chew K. & Leow Y. (2015) Clinical psychologists' use of reflection and reflective practice within clinical work. Reflective Practice 16, 731-743.
Freeman M. C., Kolappa K., Caldas de Almeida J. M. et al. (2015) Reversing hard one victories in the name of human rights: A critique of the General Comment on Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Lancet Psychiatry 2, 844-850.
Gooding P. (2014) Psychiatrists' perceptions of supported decision making: A Victorian empirical study. Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law 22, 701-722.
Gjermestad A., Luteberget L., Midjo T. & Witso A. E. (2017) Everyday life of persons with intellectual disability living in residential settings: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Disability & Society 32, 213-232.
Gordon R. M. (2000) The emergence of assisted (supported) decision-making in the Canadian law of adult guardianship and substitute decision-making. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 23, 61-77.
Grisso T. & Appelbaum P. S. (1988) Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, US.
Guba E. & Lincoln Y. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Jamieson R., Theodore K. & Raczka R. (2016) Becoming a mother: Supported decision-making in context. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 20, 313-328.
Kokanovic R., Brophy L., McSherry B., Flore J., Moeller-Saxone K. & Herrman H. (2018) Supported decision-making from the perspectives of mental health service users, family members supporting them and mental health practitioners. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 52, 826-833.
Law Reform Commission (2003) Consultation paper: Law and the elderly. (CP 23). Law Reform Commission, Dublin.
Law Reform Commission (2006) Report: Vulnerable adults and the law. (83). Dublin, Law Reform Commission.
Morse J. M. (2015) Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research 25, 1212-1222.
Murphy E., Clegg J. & Almack K. (2011) Constructing adulthood in discussions about the futures of young people with moderate-profound ID. Journal of Applied Research in ID 24, 61-73.
National Safeguarding Committee (2017) Review of current practice in the use of wardship for adults in Ireland. Ireland, National Safeguarding Committee.
NVivo qualitative data analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 11, 2014
O'Connor K. P. (2015) A constructionist clinical psychology for cognitive behaviour therapy. Routledge, London.
Pūras D. (2016) Human rights and mental health care-Can we find a common ground? European Psychiatry. [Online] 33, S3-S4.
Rapley M. (2004) The social construction of intellectual disability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Redley M., Prince E., Bateman N., Pennington M., Wood N., Croudace T. et al. (2013) The involvement of parents in healthcare decisions where adult children are at risk of lacking decision-making capacity: A qualitative study of treatment decisions in epilepsy. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 57, 531-538.
Series L. (2015) Relationships, autonomy and legal capacity: Mental capacity and support paradigms. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 40, 80-91.
Sinclair C., Bajic-Smith J., Gresham M., Blake M., Bucks R. S., Field S. et al (2019) Professionals' views and experiences in supporting decision-making involvement for people living with dementia. Dementia, pp. 1-22
Szmukler G. (2015) UNCRPD: Equal recognition before the law. Lancet Psychiatry 2, 29.
Tong A., Sainsbury P. & Craig J. (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19, 349-357. Available. at.
United Nations Committee on the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014) General Comment No. 1. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Geneva, Switzerland.
United Nations General Assembly(2007) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly: A/RES/61/106. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html(retrieved 9 September 2016)
Ward T. & Stewart C. (2008) Putting human rights into practice with people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 20, 297-311.
Wolfensberger W. (1972) The principle of normalization in human services. National Institute on Mental Retardation, Toronto.
Wood C., Giles D. & Percy C. (2012) Your psychology project handbook; becoming a researcher, Second edn. Pearson Education, Essex, England.