Cited by 43Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchMental Health and Patient InvolvementFamily and Disability Support Research

Outcomes Important to People With Intellectual Disabilities

Miller, Emma, Cooper, Sally‐Ann, Cook, Ailsa, Petch, Alison·2008·Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

Abstract An emphasis on the outcomes of health and social care services has become increasingly apparent within public policy in the United Kingdom. Alongside this, working in partnership has been a key theme, despite a relatively underdeveloped evidence base. Of central importance, however, must be whether directives toward partnership working are delivering improved outcomes, and in particular, the outcomes that are valued by service users. The authors describe a project that sought to identify the outcomes important to people with intellectual disabilities, and where possible, whether partnerships delivered these outcomes. The research was primarily based on interviews with service users and carers, and involved people with intellectual disabilities as both researchers and research subjects. The project categorized key outcomes in two categories (quality of life and process) and identified ways in which health and social care partnerships can deliver the outcomes service users want. If agencies are to deliver good outcomes to users, as increasingly emphasized in policy, this focus should accurately reflect the outcomes that users themselves define as important.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2008.00167.x

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, E., Cooper, S., Cook, A., & Petch, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Queen Margaret University (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Miller, Emma
Venue
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08-28
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
150-158
ISSN
  • 1741-1122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-1130
OpenAlex
W1977396098
Cited by
43
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
Keywords
intellectual disability, service user outcomes, partnership working, integrated care, quality of life, caregivers, health and social care policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review