Attitudes and self-efficacy towards adults with mild intellectual disability among staff in acute psychiatric wards: an empirical investigation

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether acute inpatient psychiatric staffs' attitudes and self-efficacy towards adults with mild intellectual disability, were different than towards the general mental health population. And whether their understanding of the policy for those with mental illness and intellectual disability differed. Design/methodology/approach -The study is a between-subject design, using a self-administered postal questionnaire. The sample was all qualified staff from the acute inpatient psychiatric provision of an inner London borough. Potential participants were randomly assigned to two research groups, half being given a questionnaire regarding people with intellectual disability and the other half an identical one regarding people with mental illness. Comparisons were made between the two. Findings -The majority of staff were unaware of the current policy direction for adults with intellectual disability although were on the whole in agreement to the idea that they should access mainstream services. Staff overall did not have more negative attitudes to those with intellectual disability although were less likely to empower or encourage self-advocacy. Staff were significantly less confident that they had sufficient training and experience, and in their perceived ability to be able to communicate, assess and treat adults with mild intellectual disability when compared to those with mental illness. Research limitations/implications -The response rate and small sample size is a limitation. Further research could usefully look at whether self-efficacy and attitudes differ in different models of mainstream psychiatric care. Originality/value -Government policy in the UK regarding services for people with intellectual disability advocates for inclusion and equality (Chaplin and Taggart, 2012). Those requiring psychiatric care should access this from mainstream services (.) There are, however, no UK-based studies investigating the views of mainstream acute inpatient psychiatric staff towards their role. Intellectual disability staff have concerns about their attitudes and self-efficacy and it is know that acute care is the setting where most adults with intellectual disability will come across mainstream psychiatric staff. Findings have relevance to managers and staff in both intellectual disability and psychiatric services and could be considered in the context of trying to work together as is the direction of policy.

Mainstream health professionals' stigmatising attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review

“…Also, Sowney and Barr () reported that, for accident and emergency unit nurses, there was a common but misguided assumption that carers could consent to treatment and care on behalf of an adult with ID. Finally, the support of empowerment by psychiatric staff was found to be lower for people with ID than for people with a mental illness (Mesa & Tsakanikos ). Psychiatric staff believed that, to some extent, people with ID must be protected (Ouellette‐Kuntz et al ).…”

Empirically supported psychological treatments: The challenges of comorbid psychiatric and behavioral disorders in people with intellectual disability

“…Worse still, some studies have reported blatant examples of disrespect, such as making negative comments while the person is present, or completely ignoring the person with ID and addressing their companion instead[ 32 ]. It is not uncommon for health care providers to stereotype people with ID[ 31 ], to disregard this population’s preferences and decisions regarding their own medical care[ 33 ], or even to deny them health care services altogether[ 34 ].…”

Intellectual disability and computers in therapy: Views of service users and clinical psychologists

“…Multiple factors are associated with this reduced access to and use of mental health services by people with ID, including barriers in verbal and cognitive ability (Willner, 2006) and practitioner confidence (Mesa & Tsakanikos, 2014;Rose, 2013). The limited provision of psychological therapies for people with ID may also be due to the limited evidence-base, which is short in robust designs and controlled intervention studies (Burke, 2014;Vereenooghe & Langdon, 2013).…”