Assistive technology for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States in Home- and Community-Based Services

Friedman, Carli

doi:10.1080/17483107.2023.2272849

Cited by 1 publication

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns were also raised around polling stations being busy and confusing. This complements research proposing accessibility issues as a barrier to voting (Friedman, 2018;Hood, 2016;Willis et al, 2016). This suggests the UK government is not currently meeting its UNCRPD commitments to ensure voting access and suggests that the media and political parties need to focus more on making their election information accessible.…”

Section: Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…A few participants regarded support as important because without it they would not have voted/understood election information. Some research which does so beyond the UK (Agran et al, 2016;Friedman, 2018;Friedman, 2019;Kjellberg & Hemmingsson, 2013) and considering the Scottish Independence referendum (Willis et al, 2016).…”

Section: Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this interest, there has been limited voting research directly involving people with intellectual disabilities. Globally, people with intellectual disabilities have been involved in interviews conducted by Kjellberg and Hemmingsson (2013) in Sweden and focus groups conducted by Friedman (2018, 2019) plus semi‐structured interviews conducted by Agran et al (2016) in the United States. In the United Kingdom, Willis et al (2016) reported on focus groups concerning the Scottish Independence referendum and Chadwick et al (2017) published an easy‐read report about focus groups and interviews concerning the 2015 general election.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There may be some differences in the data obtained (e.g., interviews may be shorter and less detailed) but there is literature specifically concerned with interviewing people with intellectual disabilities available to guide such research (Perry, 2004; Prosser & Bromley, 1998) and previous voting research involving people with intellectual disabilities (Agran et al, 2016; Friedman, 2018; Friedman, 2019; Kjellberg & Hemmingsson, 2013; Willis et al, 2016) demonstrates that meaningful engagement is possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Around the Scottish independence referendum, focus groups involving people with intellectual disabilities (Willis et al, 2016) and records of voting promotion workshops (Hood, 2016) highlighted difficulties obtaining information. Information being too complicated/confusing was suggested within focus groups involving people with intellectual disabilities in the United States (Friedman, 2018), Australia (Bigby et al, 2019) and the UK (Chadwick et al, 2017 published solely as an easy read-report) as well as in the first-hand account of a person with intellectual disabilities from Ireland co-authoring a paper primarily focused on communication as a human right (Murphy et al, 2017). Poor physical accessibility at polling stations was also cited as a barrier by the USA focus group (Friedman, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The perspectives of people with intellectual disabilities on their experience of voting in UK general elections

Manktelow

Chadwick

Brewster

et al. 2023

Research Intellect Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: People with intellectual disabilities' voting rate within the United Kingdom remains significantly below the population average despite government enacted voting promotion measures. No published academic literature directly involves people with intellectual disabilities when considering their UK general election experiencesthis study aims to address this omission. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people with intellectual disabilities (N = 20) about their election experiences during the 2017 (n = 18) and 2019 (n = 8) general elections. Six participants were interviewed around both elections. Data was analysed with template analysis. Results: Eight themes were producedelection information, political knowledge, political opinions, voting choice process, polling station experience, voting outcome, capacity and support. Theme interactions impacted on election experiences. Conclusions: While acknowledging diverse experiences, voting outcomes and experiences were particularly impacted by factor interactions concerning election information and/or polling station accessibility, capacity and support. Voting promotion interventions and future research should consider these areas. K E Y W O R D S general election, intellectual disability, politics, voting 1 | BACKGROUND 'People's right to participate in the conduct of public affairs is a fundamental imperative. Genuine and credible elections remain the most compelling and effective way for people to participate in governance and have their voices heard.' (United Nations, 2021). Voting is a human right with strong links to other rights, including the right to freedom from discrimination and to freedom of opinion and expression (United Nations, n.d.). The UK government has ratified The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (UNCRPD). Article 29 of this concerns Participation in Political and Public Life, including obligations to promote political involvement. The UK government has responded by issuing guidance and voting promotion measures, currently including assistive technology and assistance in polling stations (The Electoral Commission, 2022). Academic research consistently reports that people with intellectual disabilities in the United Kingdom vote significantly less than the general population. Such research includes secondary analysis of data collected by social workers through questionnaires and interviews

show abstract

Section: Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 53%