Cited by 29Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychiatric care and mental health services

Using ‘candidacy’ as a framework for understanding access to mainstream psychological treatment for people with intellectual disabilities and common mental health problems within the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service

Chinn, D., Abraham, E.·2016·Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Abstract

Background: The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service was established to address common mental health problems among the English population in a timely manner in order to counter the social and economic disadvantage accompanying such difficulties. Using the concept of candidacy, we examined how the legitimacy of claims by people with intellectual disabilities to use this service is facilitated or impeded. Method: We used a sequential mixed methods design. We completed 21 interviews with a range of stakeholders, including people with intellectual disabilities and their carers. Themes from the interviews were used to design an online survey questionnaire that was returned by 452 staff from IAPT and specialist intellectual disability services. Results: Using the candidacy framework, we noted that eligibility and access to IAPT were achieved through dynamic and iterative processes of negotiation involving people with intellectual disabilities and their supporters on one side and IAPT staff and service structures on the other. Barriers and facilitators were apparent throughout the seven dimensions of candidacy (identification, navigation, permeability of services, appearances, adjudications, offers and resistance and operating conditions) and were linked to discourses relating to the character and purpose of IAPT and specialist intellectual disability services. Conclusions: Opportunities exist for some people with intellectual disabilities to assert their candidacy for IAPT input, although there are barriers at individual, professional, organisational and structural levels. More attention needs to be paid to how principles of inclusiveness are operationalised within IAPT teams and to the mental health facilitation role of specialist intellectual disability staff.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jir.12274

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • People with intellectual disabilities and/or autism value healthcare professionals, their support network, and other professionals who work closely with them and who have specialist knowledge and experience of working with people who have intellectual disabilities.

    “People with intellectual disabilities and/or autism value healthcare professionals, their support network, and other professionals who work closely with them and who have specialist knowledge and experience of working with people who have intellectual disabilities.26,67–72”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chinn, D., & Abraham, E.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Chinn, D.
Venue
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-21
Volume
60
Issue
6
Pages
571-582
ISSN
  • 0964-2633 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2788
OpenAlex
W2341016926
Cited by
29
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Intellectual Disability Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bupa Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, intellectual disability, common mental disorders, access to psychological treatment, barriers and facilitators, caregivers, inclusivity, service navigation
MeSH terms
Adult, England, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mental Health Services, Intellectual Disability, Psychotherapy, Program Development, Qualitative Research

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