The Social Networks of People with Intellectual Disability Living in the Community 12 Years after Resettlement from Long‐Stay Hospitals

Abstract

Background The social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities presents a major challenge to services. As part of a 12-year follow up of people resettled from long-stay hospitals, the size of 213 individuals' social networks and the types of social support they received were investigated, as viewed by people with intellectual disabilities themselves. The types of support received in four different kinds of community accommodation were compared. Method Individuals were interviewed and their social support networks mapped using a Social Network Guide developed for the study. Descriptive statistics were generated and comparisons made using generalized linear modelling. Results The sample comprised 117 men (average age 51 years) and 96 women (average age 56 years). All but seven were White British, 92% were single and they had in general, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. The average network size was 22 members (range 3-51). The mean density was 0.5. A quarter of all network members were other service users with intellectual disabilities and a further 43% were staff. Only a third of the members were unrelated to learning disability services.In general, the main providers of both emotional and practical support were staff, although these relationships were less likely to be described as reciprocal. Other people with intellectual disabilities were the second most frequent providers of all types of support. People in small group homes, hostels and supported accommodation were significantly more likely to report close and companiable relationships than those in residential and nursing homes, but they also reported a greater proportion of critical behaviour. Conclusions The social networks revealed in this study are considerably larger than those of previous studies which have relied on staff reports, but findings about the generally limited social integration of people with intellectual disabilities are similar. A clearer policy and practice focus on the desirability of a range of different social contexts from which to derive potentially supportive network members is required so that people do not remain segregated in one area of life. Some participants were able to provide membership category but not the type of support provided or interactional behaviours, hence the different totals.

From solitude to solicitation: How people with intellectual disability or autism spectrum disorder use the internet

“…62.5%). The desire to meet a partner is surely explained by their very limited offline social circle, and the rarity of opportunities to actually go out and meet people without disabilities (Clement & Bigby, 2009;Forrester-Jones et al, 2006). Another explanation may be that adults with disabilities like ID or ASD are more sensitive to rejection, and thus more likely to use online dating sites (Blackhart, Fitzpatrick, & Williamson, 2014).…”

“…For people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, these relationships are often limited to other people with similar disabilities, family members and members of their paid support staff (Cambridge et al, 2002;Clement & Bigby, 2009;Forrester-Jones et al, 2006). In Sweden, parents and teachers in special programs for young adults with ID (18-20 years old) describe their students as socially isolated.…”

Quality of Life in Adolescents with a Disability and Their Parents: The Mediating Role of Social Support and Resilience

“…Second, practitioners and services should take measures to expand the social networks of adolescents with a disability and their families. This seems especially important since persons with a disability and their family members are known to have smaller social networks and are at risk for social isolation (Forrester-Jones et al, 2006;Hodapp, 2002;Robertson et al, 2001). …”

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a manualised cognitive behavioural anger management intervention delivered by supervised lay therapists to people with intellectual disabilities

“…What also makes these therapeutic bonds particularly powerful for people with intellectual disabilities is that they have considerably more restricted social networks than their non-disabled peers, 199 and far fewer relationships that might be sufficiently intimate to be confiding. 200 Moreover, service users are rarely listened to or treated as equal partners in relationships with staff members or professionals who hold positions of power in their lives. 191 Managers and therapists commented that staff worked better with one another and with service users as a consequence of taking the lay therapist role.…”