2006
DOI: 10.1177/10983007060080020301
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing a Student Respite Provider System for Children With Autism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In total, there were 16 qualitative studies looking at the views of users of short breaks (Smith et al 1988, Stalker 1988, Baxter et al 1991, Hubert 1991, Minkes et al 1994, Platts et al 1995, Prewett 1999, Kelly et al 2000, Hartrey & Wells 2003, MacDonald & Callery 2004, McConkey et al 2004, Eaton 2008, Wilkie & Barr 2008, Doig et al 2009, Langer et al 2010, Preece & Jordan 2010), plus one report reporting comments in relation to innovative examples of short breaks which are flexible and family‐centred approaches rather than traditional residential care solely for the disabled child (Social Care Institute of Excellence, 2008), one article presenting anecdotal impressions on the benefits of one short breaks scheme (Openden et al 2006), and one article (Challenging Behaviour Foundation & Tizard Centre, 2009) providing additional comments from family carers in relation to the cross‐sectional survey results reported in McGill (2009).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In total, there were 16 qualitative studies looking at the views of users of short breaks (Smith et al 1988, Stalker 1988, Baxter et al 1991, Hubert 1991, Minkes et al 1994, Platts et al 1995, Prewett 1999, Kelly et al 2000, Hartrey & Wells 2003, MacDonald & Callery 2004, McConkey et al 2004, Eaton 2008, Wilkie & Barr 2008, Doig et al 2009, Langer et al 2010, Preece & Jordan 2010), plus one report reporting comments in relation to innovative examples of short breaks which are flexible and family‐centred approaches rather than traditional residential care solely for the disabled child (Social Care Institute of Excellence, 2008), one article presenting anecdotal impressions on the benefits of one short breaks scheme (Openden et al 2006), and one article (Challenging Behaviour Foundation & Tizard Centre, 2009) providing additional comments from family carers in relation to the cross‐sectional survey results reported in McGill (2009).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, studies looking at the views of family carers regarding short breaks indicate that parents consider short breaks to be of benefit to the child (Ptacek et al 1982, Gerard 1990). Specific reported benefits include: providing the first opportunity they have had to mix with non‐disabled children (Oswin 1984); gaining in social skills, maturity and capacity for independence, including learning to separate from parents (Stalker 1988); getting new experiences and the child being happier due to attention from short break carers who have more time to spend with them (Baxter et al 1991); the opportunity to socialise outside the family (Sherman 1995); exposure to new stimuli and interests, increased social awareness and the development of social skills, development of friendships with hosts’ children, growing independence from the family, and increased confidence (Swift et al 1991); enjoyment and the chance to do activities they would not have done at home (McGill 1996); socialising with others, new environment or activities, building a relationship with short break carers, and the disabled child having a break (McConkey et al 2004); enabling children to experience new activities, opportunities for the child to mix with others, giving the child a break from parents, and preparing them for adult life (Tarleton & Macaulay 2002); the opportunity to interact socially with others in a different environment, enjoyment, getting used to being away from home, becoming more independent, and being able to go on outings and join in different activities that they could not do at home (McConkey et al 2004); facilitate social and recreational opportunities (Forde et al 2004); opportunities for social communication (Openden et al 2006); meeting other young people and increasing confidence (McConkey 2008); opportunities to make friends, develop social skills, take part in social activities, learn independence skills, and make their child happier (Shared Care Network, 2008); and opportunity to meet children outside the family and school, increased social skills, and increased opportunities to participate in leisure activities in the community (Wilkie & Barr 2008). Hospice based short breaks also gave the child the chance to talk to staff about death and dying, meet children like themselves and feel less different (Davies et al 2004).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A model for building social capital by establishing a system of paid and unpaid caregivers is described by Zloty, Roger, and Lobchuk (2011). Options to strengthen networks of caregivers, such as using university students, are described in detail by Openden, Symon, Koegel, and Koegel, (2006) and by Murphy and Verden (2012).…”
Section: Implications For Research Policy and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Une étude de Eaves et Ho (2008) estime que 56 % des familles d'enfants présentant un TSA utilisent diverses formes de services de répit et 40 % ont accès à un centre de jour. Les parents affirment que les répits leur donnent du temps pour répondre à d'autres demandes dans différentes sphères de leur vie et ce temps gagné leur permet de passer des moments de qualité avec leur enfant ayant un TSA (Openden, Symon, Koegel, & Koegel, 2006).…”
Section: Familleunclassified