Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474394›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2022

'It really is quite a different ballgame'. A qualitative study into the work experiences of remote support professionals.

Miriam Zaagsma, Mark H M Koning, Karin M Volkers, Alice P Schippers, Geert van Hove

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Miriam ZaagsmaPhiladelphia Care Foundation, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9152-8780
Mark H M KoningPhiladelphia Care Foundation, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Karin M VolkersPhiladelphia Care Foundation, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1532-429X
Alice P SchippersDepartment of Care Ethics, University of Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6376-1718
Geert van HoveDepartment of Special Needs Education, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-0524

Funding

Philadelphia Care Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional support for people with intellectual disabilities is increasingly provided remotely. This study explores what support staff of the Dutch remote support service DigiContact experience as distinctive aspects of their job as a remote support professional.

methodSemi-structured interviews were held with 10 DigiContact support workers. The transcripts were analysed through a qualitative content analysis process.

resultsSix themes were identified that reflect distinct aspects of the participants' work within the DigiContact remote support context: being encouraged to adopt a solution-oriented coaching support style; being limited in one's support options; facing considerable diversity; providing support as one team; dealing with unpredictability; and navigating the dynamic within work shifts.

conclusionsThe way support is organised and delivered can have substantial implications for support professionals. Working at a service like DigiContact seems to call for specific skills, knowledge, affinities and experience, and for appropriate support and facilitation from organisations.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityHumansQualitative ResearcheHealthintellectual disabilitiesonline supportremote supportsupport staffwork experiences

Identifiers

PMID35474394
PMCPMC9540763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.