Improving the participation of adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities: A process evaluation of a new intervention

12Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: While the participation of adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities (VSPID) in society and community life is important, evidence-based interventions to improve their participation are lacking. We conducted a process evaluation of the implementation of 'Care for Participation+' (CFP+), a new intervention targeting the attitudes of direct support professionals (DSPs) toward the participation of adults with VSPID, within a residential facility in the Netherlands. Methods: CFP+ was inspired by the Boston Psychiatric Rehabilitation Approach and adapted by adopting a new definition and operationalization of the concept of participation for adults with VSPID. Following systematic training, 16 DSPs of adults with VSPID were able to apply key elements of CFP+ to explore diverse roles and activities for this population, facilitating their self-management, teaching them necessary skills for participation, and organizing support. Our process evaluation entailed an investigation of the delivered dose, reach, fidelity, and adaptation of CFP+ during and after the CFP+ intervention. We also evaluated the mechanisms of impact and context using questionnaires, assignments, documentation, interviews, and a logbook. Results: The intended dose, reach, and fidelity relating to the implementation of CFP+ were not achieved. Despite this fact, an assessment of the mechanisms of impact indicated that assignments of CFP+ were well (75%) or reasonably well (17%) understood by DSPs. CFP+ was applied by DSPs to stimulate self-management (83% of DSPs), new activities (100%), enhanced involvement in existing activities (67%) and to explore new roles (50%) for adults with VSPID. A negative contextual factor mentioned by the trainer and manager was the DSPs' lack of commitment to the training program. Another negative contextual factor mentioned by DSPs was the lack of time for implementing CFP+. Conclusions: CFP+ provides new opportunities to improve the participation of adults with VSPID. Despite the non-optimal conditions for implementing CFP+ and the DSPs' general reluctance to apply the new intervention, some have actively used CFP+ within the residential facility. Future studies should focus on the outcomes of CFP+ regarding attitudinal changes among DSPs relating to the participation of adults with VSPID and their quality of life.

References Powered by Scopus

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

3629Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation

3513Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: Report of an international panel of experts

489Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Implementation of a program to support direct support professionals to promote a healthy lifestyle for people with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Use of everyday technology to promote ambulation in people with intellectual and multiple disabilities

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Development and process evaluation of a motor activity program for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hanzen, G., Van Nispen, R. M. A., Vlaskamp, C., Korevaar, E. L., Waninge, A., & Van Der Putten, A. A. J. (2020). Improving the participation of adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities: A process evaluation of a new intervention. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05161-1

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 14

54%

Researcher 8

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 8

28%

Psychology 8

28%

Social Sciences 7

24%

Nursing and Health Professions 6

21%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free