Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing an accessible communication resource which enables people with a learning disability to reflect on their lives and raise issues of concern.

The process of making the resource and the facets that contribute to making it accessible are explored, e.g. design specification, the relationship between pictures and meaning, the order in which concepts are presented. The paper goes on to describe how the resource is put into practice using the format of a “Talking Mat”.® Talking Mats is a communication framework which has a strong evidence base that shows it improves the quality and quantity of information a person with a learning disability gives in a conversation. It provides practitioners with a consistent framework to support implementation. The impact of using the resource is explored through feedback from practitioners trained to use it and the stories that resulted.

A well-constructed resource can support people with a learning disability to express their views on what matters to them at a specific time and raise concerns they may have. The individual views that have emerged from people are varied. This resource enabled them to be genuinely included in planning the steps required to bring about positive change in their lives.

There is much emphasis on the development of accessible resources in the field of learning disability but little on the actual development process and the context of how resources are introduced. This paper aims to contribute to this knowledge base.

People with intellectual disabilities are not routinely involved in the assessment of their behaviours that challenge, as this is often completed by a proxy respondent and the health-care professional. This is contrary to guidance stating that everyone should be involved in the planning of their care. This paper aims to show how health-care professionals can support people with intellectual disabilities to engage in the assessment of their behaviours that challenge and the subsequent development of their own positive behaviour support (PBS) plans.

A non-systematic review of the existing literature on improving the engagement of people with learning disabilities in health-care planning, and specifically PBS planning, was undertaken. Appropriate papers were included in this paper.

There are several evidence-based methods to improve people’s engagement in the assessment of their own behaviours that challenge and then the development of their PBS plans. These methods are discussed in terms of their application to supporting people to communicate and involving them in the process of developing a valid and meaningful PBS plan. This is a relatively new focus within the literature, and further research should focus on increasing engagement in the process, as well as monitoring how co-production affects PBS outcomes.

This paper summarises some of the approaches used to support people with intellectual disabilities to engage in the assessment of their behaviours that challenge and the development of their own PBS plans. This should encourage health-care professionals to consider how to use alternative and augmentative communication strategies to facilitate co-production in their own clinical practice.

Janette1 is a young woman with both a mild intellectual disability and moderate physical disabilities who experienced a major depressive disorder at a stage in her life when many young adults leave home. This case study exemplifies the success of a multi‐disciplinary, multi‐agency and multi‐element intervention for severe depression in relation to the tasks of adolescence. The impact of a combination of treatments (including attendance at an assessment day unit, electro‐convulsive therapy (ECT) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)) on Janette's mood has been assessed regularly using the Glasgow Depression Inventory ‐ Learning Disability (GDS‐LD) scale (Cuthill, 2003). There is currently very little literature on either using ECT with people with learning disabilities or assessing depression in this population. The multiple inputs, in Janette's case, have had the desired effect of greatly improving her mood, which has been sustained via outpatient follow‐up and tailoring of day and respite services.

This collaborative paper (working together) describes collaborative practice development and research by and with people from the learning disabilities community. This paper aims to show some of the activities which supported the collaborative practice development and research to show and encourage others to do more collaboration. The paper format is based on a previous collaborative paper published in the Tizard Learning Disability Review (Chapman et al., 2013).

The collaborative practice development and feasibility study [1] focuses on an intervention called Keep Safe. This is an intervention for young people with learning disabilities who are 12 years and older and have shown “out-of-control” or harmful sexual behaviour.

The paper gives examples of activities of the Keep Safe Advisory Group in planning, doing and thinking about Keep Safe development and feasibility. The authors list some good things and some difficulties in collaborating. They look at which parts of Frankena et al.’s (2019a) Consensus Statement on how to do inclusive research were done, which ones were not, and why.

The paper ends with some thoughts about collaborating with people from the learning disabilities community: for people with learning disabilities, practitioners and researchers.

The paper is original in its illustration of collaborative practice development and research and measuring the activities against the inclusive research consensus statement.

Enabling people with dementia to continue to communicate their views, needs and preferences as their condition progresses is essential for development of person‐centred services and care facilities. This paper describes part of a 15‐month research project funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It examined the effectiveness of Talking Mats, a low‐technology communication tool, to help people with dementia express their opinions, in comparison with usual communication methods. The study involved 31 people at different stages of dementia who were interviewed about their well‐being under three conditions: unstructured (ordinary) conversation, structured conversation and Talking Mats conversation. The study found that Talking Mats can improve the communication ability of many people at all stages of dementia in expressing their views about their well‐being.

The aims of this project were to establish whether Talking Mats, a low tech communication framework, helps people with dementia to communicate and to examine how effective the Talking Mats framework is for people at different stages of dementia. Thirty‐one people at three stages of dementia were interviewed about their well‐being under three interview conditions ‐ an unstructured (ordinary) conversation, a structured conversation and using the Talking Mats framework.The results indicated that conversations using the Talking Mats framework improved communication for people at all stages of dementia but that not all people at late‐stage dementia could use the Talking Mats framework effectively.The researchers concluded that the Talking Mats framework may therefore play an important role in improving quality of care by providing a simple, low‐cost tool that family and staff can use to engage with people with dementia and help them express their views about a range of topics.

People with dementia who feel included in decisions about their care show higher well‐being and positive adjustment to accepting care than those who feel their family make decisions for them (Bourgeois, 1991). Most carers want to involve the person with dementia in decision‐making and care arrangements, but many struggle because of the communication and cognitive problems associated with the condition. Research examined whether the Talking Mats framework could help people with dementia and their family carers feel more involved in decisions about managing their daily living. Eighteen couples (person with dementia and family carer) were asked to discuss how the person with dementia was managing their daily living activities using the Talking Mats framework (Condition A), and when having a typical conversation (Condition B). Each couple then completed a brief questionnaire separately to measure how involved they felt in both types of discussion. Both the person with dementia and their family carer felt more involved in discussions about managing daily living when using the Talking Mats framework than when having a typical conversation. Qualitative analysis of all discussions also offered insight into what people with dementia who are still living at home are managing in relation to their daily living. The study will contribute in a practical way to the current debate on how to involve people with dementia meaningfully in service planning. This will have implications for the organisation, delivery, and improvement of services to people with dementia.

Graphic symbols, such as photographs, Makaton and Pics for PECS, are often used in the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to support people with complex communication disorders. However, there is little research focusing on the preferences of people with disabilities in terms of which type of graphic symbol they prefer to use for their communication interactions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the symbol preferences of people with Autism Spectrum Disorder and those with intellectual disability. The research questions are as follows: Do people prefer coloured or black and white symbols? What type(s) of symbols do they prefer to use for their communication interactions? What type(s) of symbols do they consider more appropriate for children? What type(s) of symbols do they consider more appropriate for adults?

A questionnaire with simple instructions was used to elicit the information from the participants. Through purposive sampling, 25 participants between the ages of 20 and 32 were selected. Twelve participants had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, while the rest had mild or moderate intellectual disability.

Most of the participants preferred coloured symbols. Of all the six types of symbols, they preferred to use photographs and considered these as being the most appropriate symbols for adults, whereas, for them, Talking Mats is better for children.

It is vital that the voices of people with disabilities are heard and taken into account when services are to be provided.

Bowring et al. describe ways of using the Behavior Problems Inventory – Short Form, illustrating how to use clinical norms to evaluate change. This commentary focuses on the importance of considering information gained directly from people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) during assessment. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A pilot project involved interviews with four children with IDD. A Talking Mats® (TM) framework was used to gather children’s views regarding challenging behaviours (CBs) and variables relevant to a functional behavioural assessment, such as things they found to be reinforcing, things that set the occasion for CB and things that helped prevent this.

The children were able to provide information and insight into several areas that are influential in the maintenance of behaviour that challenges. Some of this information may not have been obtainable from other sources or informants using traditional assessment methods alone.

Gathering the views of people with IDD is important. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2009) states that people have the right to be heard. Many people with IDD have difficulties communicating. A TM framework is one method by which people may be able to express their views. Taking the views of the individual into account during the process of gathering information about behaviours that challenge should lead to greater understanding of the functions of any behaviours and therefore to more targeted, acceptable and effective forms of support.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the effectiveness of Talking Mats® (TM) in evaluating service users’ experiences, and explore their views of the implementation of person-centred active support (PCAS).

This is a mixed-methods study, employing qualitative interviewing and observational measures.

Both qualitative and quantitative measures indicated inconsistent implementation of PCAS. It was possible to effectively gain participants’ views on positive and negative aspects of quality of support and quality of life, using TM, across three themes, My life, My support and Self-determination.

Generalisability of the research may be limited due to the sample, and the potential for researcher and interviewer bias is acknowledged.

TM provides a mechanism that may facilitate the inclusion of the views and experiences of people with intellectual and developmental disability (PWIDD) who have limited verbal skills. Their views need to be reflected in adaptions made to PCAS.

This study included a population who are often left out of qualitative research because of the methodologies adopted. It also included older PWIDD, where there has been less research about the effectiveness of TM.