Search results

Evidence of overprescribing of psychotropic medicines to manage challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities has led to national programmes within the UK to promote deprescribing, such as stopping the overprescribing of medication in people (with learning disabilities, autism or both). To successfully implement deprescribing initiatives, we need to understand how to engage stakeholders in the process.

In a published systematic review, we reported evidence about the process of deprescribing psychotropic medicines for people of all ages with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. As a part of the original review, we searched for evidence about stakeholders’ experiences of the psychotropic deprescribing process, which was synthesised and reported within the current study.

Six studies were identified. Involving carers and people with intellectual disabilities, providing ongoing support and improving access to non-pharmacological interventions, including positive behaviour support, may contribute to successful outcomes, including reducing or stopping psychotropic medicines and improving quality of life. Implementing psychotropic deprescribing requires a multidisciplinary collaborative care approach and education for stakeholders.

There have been no previous reviews of stakeholder experiences of deprescribing psychotropic medications for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. The existing literature is scant, and further research is needed.

Building on the introduction to positive psychology and positive education in Chapter 1, the aim of Chapter 3 is to focus on wellbeing and positive education in secondary schools. This includes an overview of approaches to intervening in mental health (‘traditional’ and those which draw on the principles of positive psychology) that have been used in schools, and the factors that can influence their outcomes. When and how to apply interventions across three levels: the system, the community, and the individual, are also explored, alongside four different approaches: whole school, whole class, small group, and one-to-one. The chapter draws on up-to-date research and practical experience in secondary school settings, and includes a case study of Positive Psychology in Practice, based on the delivery (by the author) of a multi-component PPI (mPPI) – The Hummingbird Project, which has now been delivered to approximately 4,000 students in 24 secondary schools across the North West of England. The effectiveness of the mPPI, key lessons learned and insights gained are shared, including how to overcome the challenges of working in a culture not conducive to positive education.

Can we broaden the boundaries of the history of economic thought to include positionalities articulated by grassroots movements? Following Keynes’s famous remark from General Theory that ‘practical men […] are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,’ we might be wont to dismiss such a push from below. While it is sometimes true that grassroots movements channel preexisting economic thought, I wish to argue that grassroots economic thought can also precede developments subsequently elaborated by economists. This paper considers such a case: by women at the intersection of the women’s liberation movement and the claimants’ unions movement in 1970s Britain. Oral historical and archival work on these working-class women and on achievements such as their succeeding to establish unconditional basic income as an official demand of the British Women’s Liberation Movement forms the springboard for my reconstruction of the grassroots feminist economic thought underpinning the women’s basic income demand. I hope to demonstrate, firstly, how this was a prefiguration of ideas later developed by feminist economists and philosophers; secondly, how unique it was for its time and a consequence of the intersectionality of class, gender, race, and dis/ability. Thirdly, I should like to suggest that bringing into the fold this particular grassroots feminist economic thought on basic income would widen the mainstream understanding and historiography of the idea of basic income. Lastly, I hope to make the point that, within the history of economic thought, grassroots economic thought ought to be heeded far more than it currently is.