ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2025
Exploring Staff Perceptions and Experiences in Services Providing Different Levels of Active Support.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring Staff Perceptions and Experiences in Services Providing Different Levels of Active Support.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOutcomes for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, particularly those with more severe and complex needs, depend on the quality of support they receive from staff. This paper explores staff perspectives on skilled support and relationships with training and experience.
methodsQuestionnaires were received from 93 staff working in 28 supported accommodation services in which observations of the quality of support had also been conducted. Staff were asked about experience, training and views on skilled support. Content analysis was used to code written responses. Statistical analysis explored relationships between staff responses, and the quality of support was observed.
resultsStaff perceived improving the quality of life of people they supported as key. All staff considered themselves as being at least partially skilled, with the majority associating being skilled with length of experience and attendance at training. Specific training was rarely mentioned, and receipt of training was not associated with the provision of better quality of support. Practice leadership was rarely mentioned.
conclusionsIn most cases, staff showed awareness of the principles set out in policy, but their reflections did not match observed practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.