The Experiences of Intimate Relationships by People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

The findings raise questions about how best to support people with intellectual disabilities with sexuality and intimate relationships. Implications for caregivers and services are discussed.

Views and Experiences of People with Intellectual Disabilities Regarding Intimate Relationships: A Qualitative Metasynthesis

“…Fourteen studies were selected for the metasynthesis [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68], providing a total of 326 participants (167 women, 159 men), aged 18-78 years. There was a large heterosexual bias, with only five participants identifying as gay (one woman, four men), two of which described having had relationships with others of both genders.…”

“…No study met all of the quality criteria. Only half of the studies [56,62,63,[65][66][67][68] met at least seven of the criteria, and the unmet criteria often made it difficult to assess the research process clearly.…”

“…With the aims of most studies to focus on experiences, the wide range of ages within samples raised questions of heterogeneity, which would pose a risk of diluting the depth and credibility findings. This was a particular issue for those adopting a phenomenological approach [56,65,66]. The interpretations made in study six appeared further reaching than was warranted for a study with 15 participants (generalizing to 'PWID in Ireland'), and the extent to which the interpretation in study four [58] adhered to the inductive approach inherent in grounded theory was questionable, since the research was embedded in (and led by) the context of sexuality as hazardous for PWID.…”

“…Congruity between philosophical perspective and methodology utilized could not be established for a number of studies owing to a failure to identify the former [55,57,59,62,65,60]. Where the methodology used was not specified in two studies [55,59], correspondence with the authors established that thematic analysis had been used in both; the accessible format of the article, and the 'participatory action research' approach used, were the respective reasons the method of analysis had been omitted from the write up.…”

The inclusion of LGBT+ health issues within undergraduate healthcare education and professional training programmes: A systematic review

“…Each question was scored zero, one or two out of a possible 20 points. A score of zero was given if the paper contained no information, one if there was a moderate amount, and a score of two if the question was fully addressed (Rushbrooke et al, 2014). A total of 13 studies scored 17 and above (Bidell, 2017;Carabez et al, 2015b;Daley and MacDonnell, 2015;Echezona-Johnson, 2017;Grosz et al, 2017;Kelley et al, 2008;Lim et al, 2015;Obedin-Maliver et al, 2011;Parameshwaran et al, 2017;Rogers et al, 2013;Strong and Folse, 2014;Walsh and Hendrickson, 2015;White et al, 2015).…”