How do people with moderate intellectual disability evaluate restrictions in daily care?

References

• Abma, T, et al. 2006. Kwaliteitscriteria voor vrijheidsbeperking in de zorg voor mensen met een verstandelijke beperking [Quality standards for restraint of freedom]. Maastricht: University Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C, et al. 2008. Offering choices to people with intellectual disabilities: An interactional study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 1165–1175.10.1111/jir.2008.52.issue-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrey, J. and Copeland, S. 2014. ‘You have to care’. Perceptions of promoting autonomy in support settings for adults with intellectual disability. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 38–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland, M, et al. 2008. Methodological issues in inclusive intellectual disability research: A health promotion needs assessment of people attending irish disability services. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21, 199–209.10.1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00404.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Dörenberg, V, et al. 2013. Oog voor vrijheid. Kwaliteitscriteria voor vrijheidsbeperking in de zorg voor jongeren en jongvolwassenen met een lichte verstandelijke beperking [Eye for freedom]. Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden.
   Google Scholar
• Embregts, P. 2011. Zien, bewogen worden, in beweging komen. Inaugurele rede [Seeing, being moved, start moving. Inaugural speech]. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
   Google Scholar
• Embregts, P, et al. 2015. Menslievende zorg. Handleiding voor trainers [Professional loving care. guidelines for professionals]. Nijmegen: Academy Arnhem en Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• Guest, G, et al. 2006. How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18, 59–82.10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, A, Frederiks, B. and Verkerk, M. 2008. Het recht op autonomie in samenhang met goede zorg bezien [The right on autonomy in conjunction with good care]. Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht, 32, 2–18.10.1007/BF03081467
   Google Scholar
• Hermsen, M. and Embregts, P. 2015. An explorative study of the place of the ethics of care and reflective practice in social work education and practice. Social Work Education, 34, 815–828.10.1080/02615479.2015.1059804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertogh, C, et al. 2015. Belevingsonderzoek dwang in de zorg. Twee samenhangende deelstudies [Perception of coercion in care]. Amsterdam/Tilburg, Netherlands: VUMc/Tilburg University.
   Google Scholar
• Heyvaert, M, et al. 2014. Systematic review of restraint interventions for challenging behaviour among persons with intellectual disabilities: Focus on experiences. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 28, 61–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J, et al. 2016. Restrictive practices on refugees in Australia with intellectual disability and challenging behaviours: A family’s story. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 10, 222–232.10.1108/AMHID-02-2016-0004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaver, K. and Baart, A. 2011. Attentiveness in care: Towards a theoretical framework. Nursing Ethics, 18, 686–693.10.1177/0969733011408052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kultgen, J. 2014. Professional paternalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17, 399–412.10.1007/s10677-013-9451-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhr, T. 3rd ed. 2005. Atlas.ti: The knowledge workbench (version 5.0.66). London: Scolari/Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, G. and Lakhani, S. 1998. The five accomplishments: A framework for obtaining customer feedback in a health service community learning disability team. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 94–99.10.1111/bld.1998.26.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Negenman, A, et al. 2014. De perceptie van vrijheidsbeperkende maatregelen door begeleiders in de residentiёle zorg voor jongeren en jongvolwassenen met een lichte verstandelijke beperking [Perception of restraining by support staff]. Tijdschrift voor de Zorg aan mensen met verstandelijke beperkingen, 40, 147–162.
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands Institute for Health Service Research (NIVEL), 2013. Vrijheidsbeperkende maatregelen in de zorg voor jongeren en jongvolwassenen met een lichte verstandelijke beperking [Restraining measures in the care for young with a mild ID]. Available at: <www.nivel.nl≥ [ Accessed June 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Tideman, M. and Svensson, O. 2015. Young people with intellectual disability: The role of self-advocacy in a transformed Swedish welfare system. Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being [published online] (March 2015). doi: 10.3402/qhw.v10.25100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonkens, E. and Weijers, I. 1999. Autonomy, solidarity, and self-realization: Policy views of dutch service providers. Mental Retardation, 37, 468–476.10.1352/0047-6765(1999)037&lt;0468:ASASPV&gt;2.0.CO;2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• UN, Chronicle 2004. ‘Nothing about us without us’: Recognising the rights of people with disabilities. UN Chronicle, 41, 4.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCORPD), 2012. Available at: <https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html> [ Accessed October 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Van Asselt-Goverts, A, et al. 2015. Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: Characteristics, satisfaction, wishes and quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59, 450–461.10.1111/jir.12143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dartel, H. 2007. Goede zorg bij verzet, handleiding bij omgaan met verzet [Good care in case of resistance]. Utrecht: VGN.
   Google Scholar
• Van Gennep, A. 1997. Paradigmaverschuiving in de visie op zorg voor mensen met een verstandelijke handicap [Shift in paradigm]. Maastricht: Universiteit Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• Van Heijst, A. 2009. Professional loving care and the bearable heaviness of being. In: H. Lindemann, M. Verkerk and M. Walker, eds. Naturalized bioethics, toward responsible knowing and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–217.
   Google Scholar
• Van Heijst, A. 2011. Professional loving care: An ethical view of the healthcare sector. Leuven: Peeters.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Meulen, A, et al. 2018. Restraints in daily care for people with moderate intellectual disabilities. Nursing Ethics, 25, 54–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Oorsouw, W, et al. 2013. Evaluating staff training: Taking account of interactions between staff and clients with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 38, 356–364.10.3109/13668250.2013.826787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Oorsouw, W, et al. 2014. Writing about stress: The impact of a stress management program on staff accounts of dealing with stress. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 70, 236–246.10.1111/jar.2014.27.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Van der Zande, M, et al. 2013. Ethical sensitivity in practice: Finding tacit moral knowing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70, 68–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verkerk, M. 2001. The care perspective and autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 4, 289–294.10.1023/A:1012048907443
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), 2012. Enschede. Netherlands: Printpartners Ipskamp.
   Google Scholar
• Wetsvoorstel Zorg en Dwang, 2017. Bill Care and Coercion regarding psychogeriatric clients and clients with an intellectual disability. Available at: <http://www.eerstekamer.nl> [ Accessed June 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Williams, V. and Porter, S. 2015. The meaning of ‘choice and control’ for people with intellectual disabilities who are planning their social care and support. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30, 97–108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zijlmans, L, et al. 2011. Training emotional intelligence related to treatment skills of staff working with clients with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55, 219–230.10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01367.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar