Distress in children with learning disabilities at a respite unit: perspective on their experiences

Numerous studies have investigated the benefits of respite to families with a disabled child. Far fewer have examined the effects on the child and none have systematically compared information about this from different sources. Reports of behavioural reactions and views on distress were gathered from parents, teachers and respite staff. Children were also asked for their views. Over half the children (54%) were reported to show medium or strong negative reactions lasting for 1 or more days by a parent or teacher. Reported reactions varied widely between home and school and no concordance was found between parents, teachers and respite staff groups regarding distress. Some children's views differed from those of their parent or teacher. The findings highlight the extent of differences in perspectives and suggest the need for greater awareness of the possible distress to children attending respite. This is discussed in relation to factors such as the potential conflict of interests between parents and children, communication and behavioural difficulties, and the context in which the child is observed.

The interprofessional practitioner: changing professional identity in social work

Twenty years ago the first joint training programme in learning disability nursing and social work was established as a collaborative project to develop practitioners able to work holistically with people with learning disabilities. Since then a number of programmes have continued this work and more recently the approach has developed in the mental health specialism. These programmes have changed the nature of singular social work education and created a new region of knowledge (Bernstein, 2000) for those who have experienced them. What began as a radical experiment in interprofessional education has been sustained by a strong commitment to the belief that the practitioners who qualify from such programmes are well equipped to support people with learning disabilities in changing and multi-professional services. As with much interprofessional education, however, there is an ongoing need to build an evidence base linking such education with successful outcomes in practice. This paper presents and explores the outcomes of a doctoral research study aimed at evaluating the impact of joint training in learning disability nursing and social work on the professional identity, skills and working practices of practitioners who undertook it. The research was undertaken with almost fifty jointly trained practitioners and involved a national survey followed by semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that practitioners who experience the dual socialisation inherent in this type of training found both gains and losses in the process. They appear to emerge, however, with a confidence, resilience and breadth of knowledge which were part of the early vision for this transformative approach to professional training. Bernstein B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised Edition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (USA).

Measuring the health-related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease.

Objectives—To inform researchers and clinicians about the most appropriate generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life for use among people with ischaemic heart disease. Methods—MEDLINE and BIDS were searched for research papers which contained a report of at least one of the three most common generic instruments or at least one of the five disease specific instruments used with ischaemic heart disease patients. Evidence for the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of these instruments was critically appraised. Results—Of the three generic measures—the Nottingham health profile, sickness impact profile, and short form 36 (SF-36)—the SF-36 appears to offer the most reliable, valid, and sensitive assessment of quality of life. However, a few of the SF-36 subscales lack a sufficient degree of sensitivity to detect change in a patient’s clinical condition. According to the best available evidence, the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire should be preferred to the Seattle angina questionnaire, the quality of life index cardiac version, the angina pectoris quality of life questionnaire, and the summary index. Overall, research on disease specific measures is sparse compared to the number of studies which have investigated generic measures. Conclusions—An assessment of the quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease should comprise a disease specific measure in addition to a generic measure. The SF-36 and the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire (version 2) are the most appropriate currently available generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life, respectively. Further research into the measurement of health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease is required in order to address the problems (such as lack of sensitivity to detect change) identified by the review.

Generic, disease-specific and individualised approaches to measuring health-related quality of life among people with heart disease - a comparative analysis.

Increasing emphasis is being placed on the evaluation of health-related quality of life. However, there is no consensus on the definition of this concept and as a result there are a plethora of existing measurement instruments. Head-to-head comparisons of the psychometric properties of existing instruments are necessary to facilitate evidence-based decisions about which instrument should be chosen for routine use. Therefore, an individualised instrument (the modified Patient Generated Index), a generic instrument (the Short Form 36) and a disease-specific instrument (the Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire) were administered to patients with ischaemic heart disease (n=117) and the evidence for the validity, reliability and sensitivity of each instrument was examined and compared. The modified Patient Generated Index compared favourably with the other instruments but none of the instruments examined provided sound evidence for sensitivity to change. Therefore, any recommendation for the use of the individualised approach in the routine collection of health-related quality of life data in clinical practice must be conditional upon the submission of further evidence to support the sensitivity of such instruments.

Do people with diabetes who need to talk want to talk?

Aim. To examine whether the people with diabetes who ask for psychological support are those who are experiencing clinically significant levels of psychological distress.
Method. In total 300 people with diabetes were asked to complete psychometrically validated questionnaires that assessed subjective need and objective psychological distress.
Results. High levels of psychological distress were reported: 25% of the sample reported depressive symptomatology, 41% reported clinically significant levels if anxiety and 51% reported a degree of binge eating behaviour. Participants also indicated a desire to talk to diabetes professionals about various problem areas in diabetes. Chi-square analysis demonstrated that those reporting psychological distress, especially depression, were most likely to indicate a desire to talk to somebody about living with diabetes.
Conclusions. Those who want to talk are those who need to talk. Future service development issues should acknowledge the needs and expressed wishes of service users.