The double‐edged sword of vulnerability: Explaining the persistent challenges for practitioners in supporting parents with intellectual disabilities

• Published in: Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities Vol. 32; no. 6; pp. 1523 - 1534
• Main Authors: MacIntyre, Gillian, Stewart, Ailsa, McGregor, Sharon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley-Blackwell 01-11-2019; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Access to Information; Agency Cooperation; At Risk Persons; Attitude; Attitude of Health Personnel; Barriers; Caregiver Attitudes; Caregivers; Child care; Childrens health; Collaboration; Ethics; Expectation; Families & family life; families or whole family approach; Family Programs; Foreign Countries; Health Policy; Health Services; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Identification; Intellectual disabilities; Intellectual Disability; Labeling (of Persons); Medical ethics; multi-disciplinary working; Parenting; Parenting Skills; Parents; Parents & parenting; Parents with Disabilities; parents with intellectual disabilities; Public Policy; Scotland; Social services; Social Work; supporting parents; Vulnerability; Vulnerable Populations; United Kingdom (Scotland); Scotland; United Kingdom > UK; supporting parents; parents with intellectual disabilities; multi-disciplinary working; families or whole family approach
• ISSN: 1360-2322; 1468-3148
• DOI: 10.1111/jar.12647

Background
Evidence suggests that parents with intellectual disabilities can be “good enough” parents with appropriate support that focuses on the whole family. This paper brings together theories of vulnerability with an ethics of care approach to reflect on challenges for practitioners in supporting parents, drawing upon data from a study carried out in Scotland.
Method
An online survey was administered to practitioners in three settings, and follow‐up interviews were carried out with key informants.
Results
Pockets of good practice existed but a number of barriers to supporting families remained. These related to a lack of accessible information, difficulties in identifying and engaging with families at an early stage and poor joint working across agencies.
Conclusion
The study concludes by arguing that practitioners' constructions of families as “vulnerable” reflects negatively on their perceived capacity to parent, creating further barriers in accessing appropriate support and reducing expectations of success.