Psychologists' perspectives on supported decision making in Ireland.
Saved in:
| Title: | Psychologists' perspectives on supported decision making in Ireland. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Rogers, E., Pilch, M., McGuire, B. E., Flynn, E., Egan, J. |
| Source: | Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. Mar2020, Vol. 64 Issue 3, p234-245. 12p. 2 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Attitude (Psychology), Decision making, Interviewing, Research methodology, Medical personnel, People with intellectual disabilities, Psychologists, Research, Statistical sampling, Qualitative research, Judgment sampling, Social constructionism, Social support, Thematic analysis |
| Geographic Terms: | Ireland |
| Abstract: | Background: A new legal capacity act was introduced in Ireland in 2015. This study aimed to identify and critically examine key issues in the area of decision‐making capacity from the perspective of psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. Methods: A qualitative exploratory approach was employed, and the study was positioned in a social constructionist framework. Purposive and snowballing sampling methods were used to recruit 15 clinical psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. Data were collected with the use of individual semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using a model of thematic analysis. Results: Six themes were identified: (1) a presumption of capacity but a culture of incapacity, (2) supporting decision making as a process, (3) authenticity of decision making, (4) need for support and training, (5) contributions of psychology and (6) the way forward. Conclusions: Participants described that people with intellectual disabilities were often excluded from decision‐making processes. They welcomed the functional approach to decision making, considered substituted decision making to be necessary within a support framework and described supporting decision making as a process. Systemic, resource and attitudinal challenges were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: A new legal capacity act was introduced in Ireland in 2015. This study aimed to identify and critically examine key issues in the area of decision‐making capacity from the perspective of psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. Methods: A qualitative exploratory approach was employed, and the study was positioned in a social constructionist framework. Purposive and snowballing sampling methods were used to recruit 15 clinical psychologists working with adults with an intellectual disability. Data were collected with the use of individual semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using a model of thematic analysis. Results: Six themes were identified: (1) a presumption of capacity but a culture of incapacity, (2) supporting decision making as a process, (3) authenticity of decision making, (4) need for support and training, (5) contributions of psychology and (6) the way forward. Conclusions: Participants described that people with intellectual disabilities were often excluded from decision‐making processes. They welcomed the functional approach to decision making, considered substituted decision making to be necessary within a support framework and described supporting decision making as a process. Systemic, resource and attitudinal challenges were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09642633 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/jir.12712 |
