Quality of life for people with intellectual disabilities

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 508-513

  Bertelli, Marco ^a,c   Brown, Ivan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Assessment; Family health; Intellectual disability; Measurement; Mental health; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COPING BEHAVIOR; DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION; EVALUATION; FAMILY ATTITUDE; FAMILY COPING; HUMAN; INTELLECTUAL IMPAIRMENT; LIFE SATISFACTION; LIFESPAN; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MENTAL HEALTH CARE; MENTAL PATIENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; VALIDATION STUDY; WELLBEING;

FAMILY; HUMANS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; MENTAL RETARDATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33746730487     PISSN: 09517367     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.yco.0000238479.81528.9f     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Brown RI, Brown I. The application of quality of life. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:718-727. The article helps the reader to reorganize current knowledge on QoL at the light of four basic strands of application to PWID. The preciseness of the principle of choice is also given.
2. Emerson E, Hatton C, Thompson T, Parmenter T. The international handbook of applied research in intellectual disability. Chichester: Wiley; 2004.
3. Cummins RA. Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:699-706. The paper points out main limits of the current QoL constructs. It also suggests several interesting lines of empirical investigations.
4. International Wellbeing Group. Normative data - international. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University; 2005. http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/instruments/ instrument.php.
5. Perry J, Felce D. Correlation between subjective and objective measures of outcome in staffed community housing. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:278-287. An interesting but limited empirical exploration of the correlations between some areas of subjective QoL and objective outcome measures.
6. Heal L, Rubin S. Biases in responses during the interviews of individuals with mental retardation. Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association on Mental Retardation; 1993.
7. Raynes N, Wright K, Shiell A, Pettipher C. The cost and quality of community residential care. London: David Fulton; 1994.
8. Schalock R, Verdugo M, Jenaro C, et al. A cross-cultural study of core quality of life domains and indicators: an exploratory analysis. Am J Ment Retard 2005; 110:298-311. The paper summarizes results of a long-lasting investigation on cross-cultural differences in QoL indicators. Factors on importance and use have been grouped into eight core domains.
9. Jenaro C, Verdugo MA, Caballo C, et al. Cross-cultural study of person-centred quality of life domains and indicators: a replication. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:734-739. This research expands a previous cross-cultural study by the application of the CCSQoLI to the following four European countries: France, Belgium, Italy and Poland.
10. Verdugo MA, Schalock RL, Keith KD, Stancliffe RJ. Quality of life and its measurement: important principles and guidelines. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:707-717. The paper is a well organized discussion of the principles that should guide QoL measurement and data application.
11. Otrebski W. Variables influencing the ratings of importance and use of quality of life domains and indicators by Polish professionals. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:750-755. The study examines the differences related to a professional's background characteristics in CCSQoLI scores.
12. Xu J, Wang M, Xiang Y, Hu X. Quality of life for people with intellectual disabilities in China: a cross-culture perspectives study. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49 (Pt 10):745-749. The study consists in a multicentric application of the CCSQoLI in China. It also summarizes effects of the introduction of the QoL concept in the local education and rehabilitation processes.
13. Aznar AS, Castanon DG. Quality of life from the point of view of Latin American families: a participative research study. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:784-788. The study shows some limits of the Schalock's eight-domain structure and proposes a new topological tridimensional model for the cross-cultural evaluation.
14. Keith KD, Bonham GS. The use of quality of life data at the organization and system level. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:799-805. The article describes two interesting examples of how QoL data can be usefully applied to sanitary policies and practices.
15. Cummins RA, Lau ALD, Stokes M. HRQoL and subjective well being: noncomplementary forms of outcome measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004; 4:413-420.
16. Brown I, Renwick R, Raphael D. Quality of life instrument package for adults with developmental disabilities centre for health promotion. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto; 1997.
17. Lachapelle Y, Wehmeyer ML, Haelewyck M-C, et al. The relationship between quality of life and self-determination: an international study. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:740-744. The study refers to the application of two specific instruments to a sample of adults with mild intellectual disability living in community settings.
18. Zhang D, Wehmeyer M, Chen LJ. Parent and teacher engagement in fostering the self-determination of students with disabilities: a comparison between the US and Taiwan. Remedial Special Educ 2005; 26:55-64.
19. Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48:977-988.
20. Cummins RA. The validity and utility of subjective quality of life: a reply to Hatton & Ager. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2002; 15:261-268.
21. Cummins RA. Proxy responding for subjective well being: a review. Int Rev Res Ment Retard 2002; 25:183-207.
22. Peery J, Felce D. Initial findings on the involvement of people with an intellectual disability in interviewing their peers about quality of life. J Intellect Dev Disabil 2004; 29:164-171.
23. Lyons G. The Life Satisfaction Matrix: an instrument and procedure for assessing the subjective well being quality of life of individuals with profound multiple disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:766-769. The paper empirically supports the possibility to assess QoL in people with profound intellectual disability. It also gives an example of how to do it.
24. Baum N. Quality of life is not only for people served - it is also for staff: the multifocal approach. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:809-811. The paper highlights the positive impact of a continuative QoL approach to the whole care system.
25. Bramston P, Chipuer H, Pretty G. Conceptual principles of quality of life: an empirical exploration. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:728-733. The paper has the merit to empirically compare the relationship between QoL, stress and social support in people with and without intellectual disabilities.
26. Duvdevany I, Arar E. Leisure activities, friendship, and quality of life of persons with intellectual disability: foster homes vs community residential settings. Int J Rehabil Res 2004; 27:289-296.
27. Cummins R, Lau A. Community integration or community exposure: a review and discussion in relation to people with an intellectual disability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2003; 16:145-157.
28. Kober R, Eggleton IRC. The effect of different types of employment on quality of life. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:756-760. The paper empirically investigates the usefulness of QoL as an outcome measure of one of the most important rehabilitative tools.
29. Turnbull A, Turnbull R, Erwin E, Soodak L. Families, professionals, and exceptionality: positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Prentice Hall; 2006. The volume describes how the family is impacted by a member with disability and how it can contribute to the rehabilitation program.
30. Summers JA, Poston DJ, Turnbull AP, et al. Conceptualizing and measuring family quality of life. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:777-783. The paper offers an interesting review on the topic. It also introduces an assessment scale and suggests respective implications for research and practice.
31. Brown I, Brown R, Neikrug S. Family quality of life survey faculty of social work. Toronto: University of Toronto; 2000.
32. Brown I, Brown RI, Isaacs B, et al. Family quality of life survey: main caregivers of people with intellectual disabilities. Toronto, Canada: Surrey Place Centre; 2006.
33. Beach Center on Disability. Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale user's manual. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas; 2005.
34. Jokinen NS, Brown RI. Family quality of life from the perspective of older parents. J Intellect Disabil Res 2005; 49:789-793. The study applies Brown's Family QoL Survey to a small but characteristic sample of older parents of adults with intellectual disabilities.