Where Care Converges: Uncovering Shared Experiences of Parents and Service Providers for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities in Times of Austerity.
Rachel Abigail Harrison, Jill Bradshaw, Michelle McCarthy
PMID 40269513WHAT IT FOUND
Parents and service providers described austerity as eroding trust and forcing them into an adversarial 'fighter' role.
They reported that reassessments were perceived as cost-cutting tools rather than support mechanisms, leading to isolation, burnout, and unmet health needs for adults with intellectual disabilities.
Key findings
01Participants felt relationships with authorities deteriorated into adversarial dynamics, with many adopting a 'fighter' identity to secure basic support.
02Reassessments under the Care Act were perceived by parents and providers as mechanisms to cut costs rather than assess needs, often resulting in reduced support for unchanged or increased needs.
03Austerity-related cuts were linked to negative health outcomes, including untreated conditions, social isolation, and high levels of stress and burnout among both parents and service providers.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study relied on a small, self-selected sample of participants who were already dissatisfied with services, which may bias the findings toward negative experiences. Data collection occurred before the pandemic, so the current context of austerity and service provision may have changed. The sample lacked diversity in terms of socio-economic background, ethnicity, and geography. The study did not include the views of adults with intellectual disabilities themselves, nor those of local authority workers or commissioners.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the University of Kent.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret these findings as evidence of a specific clinical intervention's efficacy. This is a qualitative description of service users' and providers' experiences with policy and funding cuts, not a measure of therapeutic outcomes.