Search results

The purpose of the study was to examine whether there were differences in the provision of non-pharmacological interventions based on the level of intellectual disability and the presence or absence of autism. Mental health conditions are often underdiagnosed in adults with intellectual disability and do not always receive psychological interventions as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellent guidelines. To realise the national UK programme’s aim of stopping the overuse of medications in people with intellectual disability, it is important that these individuals have access to appropriate non-pharmacological interventions. The authors examined the relationship between an individual’s level of intellectual disability and the presence or absence of autism with access to relevant non-pharmacological interventions from specialist community intellectual disability services.

A cross-sectional study of adults accessing four specialist intellectual disability services in North West England in 2019.

There was a high prevalence of mental health comorbidity, even higher for autistic adults. However, a relatively small percentage of the study population was receiving psychological interventions. The most frequent non-pharmacological intervention was a positive behaviour support plan, irrespective of comorbid mental illnesses.

Not having access to psychological interventions for the treatment of mental illness could result in poor health outcomes and increasing health inequalities. The study highlights the need for developing psychological interventions, particularly for those with moderate to severe intellectual disability and for those with associated autism.

This large sample study examined the relationship between intellectual disability level and the presence of autism with accessing psychological interventions.

This study aims to evaluate the quality of transition from child and adolescent services to adult intellectual disability services, using the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standard (QS140). In addition, this study also identifies any differences in transition quality between those young people with intellectual disability with and without autism.

Using routinely collected clinical data, this study identifies demographic and clinical characteristics of, and contextual complexities experienced by, young people in transition between 2017 and 2020. Compliance with the quality standard was assessed by applying dedicated search terms to the records.

The study highlighted poor recording of data with only 22% of 306 eligible cases having sufficient data recorded to determine compliance with the NICE quality standard. Available data indicated poor compliance with the standard. Child and adolescent mental health services, generally, did not record mental health co-morbidities. Compliance with three out of the five quality statements was higher for autistic young people, but this only reached statistical significance for one of those statements (i.e. having a named worker, p = 0.02).

Missing data included basic clinical characteristics such as the level of intellectual disability and the presence of autism. This required adult services to duplicate assessment procedures that potentially delayed clinical outcomes. This study highlights that poor compliance may reflect inaccurate recording that needs addressing through training and introduction of shared protocols.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the transition process between children’s and adults’ intellectual disability health services using NICE quality standard 140.

The peer-reviewed chapters in Volume 12 emphasize the role of family systems in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes. Interestingly, spousal influence is a major topic in three of the chapters. Another important theme is family business identity and how a range of different influences – from within-family perceptions to broad institutional pressures – affect family business image and organizational performance. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods are employed to address the role of entrepreneurship in family businesses.

Entrepreneurs may wish to be selective about which relatives to include or exclude in their businesses. For example, their child might be inept but their niece might be outstanding. What aspects of kinship systems affect their ability to make these sorts of choices? What enables them to bend their ties of kinship and marriage to the interests of their business? Most broadly, what dimensions of kinship lend themselves to tactical or instrumental actions? This question is sweeping just as my meaning of “entrepreneurs” is very broad: those who take actions with the goal of growing their capital (Stewart, 1991). This capital may take the form of newly started ventures, dynastic firms, or even in precapitalist systems other social forms, for example, rural estates farmed by followers.

Are the social domains of kinship and business on balance complementary or contradictory? Do ventures that invest heavily in both – conventionally referred to as “family firms” – bear a net gain or net loss? We are scarcely the first to raise these questions. How then will we try to contribute to an answer? We try this in five ways, all of them based on previous literature. First, we develop the dichotomy of kinship and business by taking seriously the metaphor of yin and yang, merging it with the anthropological constructs of structural domains such as “domestic” and “public.” This metaphor proves to shed light on the relevant literature. Second, we provide a qualitative survey of the costs and benefits of kinship in business. Third, we summarize the empirical work that addresses the performance outcomes from family involvement. Fourth, we consider the practitioner implications of these studies. Finally, we ask if scholars are as yet in a position to answer these questions.

Less polemical authors have published useful overviews of scholarship and institutional development in family business (Chrisman, Kellermanns, Chan, & Liano, 2010; Heck, Hoy, Poutziouris, & Steier, 2008; Schulze & Gedajlovic, 2010; Sharma, 2004). I take this as license for hyperbole. In such a vein, I am skeptical eight times over: that the field can be objective, that it can be defined, that “family business” is the right label, that it will find useful theories, that kinship exists, that if it does exist (all right, I do believe it does) we really observe it in action, that the field can progress without regressing, that it can be relevant, and that it can find its niche in universities. “Skeptical” has a nice ring to it. I confess, though, that my concerns are worries more than a lack of willingness to believe. After all, I hope that the papers in this volume will goad us into avoiding pitfalls as the field develops.

Although the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management includes family businesses within its domain statement, it is important to recognize that these are two distinct domains, although enjoying some overlap (cf. Stewart, 2008, for comparisons of family business with entrepreneurship and other domains). Both are comprehensive domains. They encompass the various functions of business administration: accounting, economics, finance, management, marketing, and so forth. And both extend beyond business administration departments. Entrepreneurship relates to the creation of intellectual property in science and engineering; it draws from sociology, psychology, and other liberal arts disciplines; and it extends into education programs as more kindergarten through high school programs incorporate exposure to free enterprise systems and venturing into their curricula.