ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
Continued Involvement: A Scoping Review on Family Members' Needs and Experiences Collaborating With Support Staff for Relatives With Intellectual Disabilities Living Outside the Family Home.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFamily members' involvement in the care for their relative often continues after their relative has moved out of the family home. However, little is known about the needs of family members when collaborating specifically with support staff caring for their relative. This scoping review provides an overview of existing literature to inform future research.
methodThe review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA for Scoping Review statement. Seven databases were systematically searched in April 2022 (with a final update in May 2025). Studies that were published in English in peer-reviewed journals and examined the needs and experiences of family members collaborating with support staff in residential care settings were considered for inclusion. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess risk of bias and a thematic synthesis was conducted to analyse the data.
resultsTen articles met the inclusion criteria. Four studies focused on family members' experiences following a relative's transition from institutional or hospital settings, one study on sibling-staff collaboration, one on the roles of adult siblings, one exploring family experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, one on parental perceptions of communication, one on family experiences postabuse inquiry and one focused on collaboration within hospital settings. The studies involved relatives with severe (n = 1), mild, severe and profound (n = 1), severe to profound (n = 1) or profound intellectual disabilities (n = 3). Four did not mention the level of intellectual disability. The synthesis yielded four analytical themes: (1) complexities in building personal relationships amidst changing contexts (n = 8), (2) navigating how to address unmet needs and the vulnerability it exposes (n = 3), (3) a desire for partnership and recognition (n = 10) and (4) a desire for staff to uphold their relative's quality of life (n = 10). DISCUSSION: This review highlights key areas for future research, including how family characteristics, disability severity and living arrangement can influence needs and experiences when collaborating with support staff. Additionally, further insight is needed on what impacts the dynamic nature of family-staff relationships. Lastly, understanding the views and experiences of support staff regarding family involvement is important, as it can aid the development of collaboration that is sensitive to their specific needs.
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.