Support for decision making needs to be individualised.
Our co-produced research report on supported decision making for people with intellectual disabilities and mental ill health made a number of recommendations.
Take a look at page 44 of the report for further information.
Davidson, G. Edge, R., Falls, D., Keenan, F., Kelly, B., McLaughlin, A., Montgomery, L., Mulvenna, C., Norris, B., Owens, A., Shea Irvine, R. and Webb. P. (2018) p. 44
- Our co-produced research report is now available on supported decision making with people with intellectual disabilities and mental ill health.
- An easy read report is also available.
Decision making is a central aspect of people’s lives. Participants discussed the positive role which decision making can have in their life but also how it felt when they are not supported to make their own decisions.
Participants said there were three things that make decision making harder: the type of decision; the role of other people; and what the outcome might be.
Time was consistently identified as a very important factor in making decisions.
In terms of support, people said they would like: practical support including more accessible information; emotional support including someone to talk to; and sometimes the options to choose from.
The peer researcher aspect of the project strengthened the research process and was valued by participants. This is an evolving area of research practice that needs further critical exploration of the issues involved.
Davidson, G. Edge, R., Falls, D., Keenan, F., Kelly, B., McLaughlin, A., Montgomery, L., Mulvenna, C., Norris, B., Owens, A., Shea Irvine, R. and Webb. P. (2018) p. 6
Illman, J. (2016) Handling the Media: Communications and Presentation Skills for Healthcare Professionals
This book is primarily for healthcare professionals who may not know how to communicate with the media or who may be reluctant to do so. Written by an experienced medical writer, the book shows how the interests of journalists differ from those of healthcare professionals, while emphasising that the relationship between these two groups need not be an antagonistic one.
Because journalists will be interested in stories which are novel, universally appealing and controversial, the author argues that healthcare workers should engage with the media in order to avoid misrepresentation. But to engage successfully, communication skills need to be honed.
John Illman consequently offers concrete advice on how to respond to requests for a media interview and how to prepare for the interview once accepted. Particularly insightful is his discussion of “bridging” techniques, which are used to acknowledge and to respond constructively to difficult questions. This is an important skill to master where the agendas of the interviewer and the interviewee differ.
Useful guidance is also given on how to prepare and deliver presentations and how to use social media to communicate effectively. The advice on writing for the press and on pitching an outline of an article to an editor is similarly good and will appeal to readers who want to make medical journalism their career.
This is an excellent book. There is some theory in relation to journalistic balance, bias and law, but the focus is practical. It is well written and will certainly encourage the reader to believe that they can use the media to communicate with a non‐specialist public.
Review originally published in Reviews Significance , 14:2 45 doi
Our four peer researchers gave a wonderful presentation of findings so far for the supported decision making research project at the Knowledge Exchange Seminar (KESS), Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast on the 7th February 2018.
A policy briefing, the slides and a video of their talk is now available!
Our research team will be giving a presentation on Supported decision making – experiences, approaches and preferences at the Knowledge Exchange Seminar, Long Gallery, Parliament Buildings, Stormont on the 7th February 2018.
So why not take a look at the abstract and register to attend if you are around?
Making decisions about your own life is a key aspect of independence, freedom and human rights. Mental health law has previously allowed compulsory intervention even when a person has the decision making ability to decline intervention. This discriminates against those with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities. In May 2016 the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) became statutory law, although may not be implemented until 2020. In contrast to other countries this law will replace rather than be in parallel to a mental health law. This is a unique and progressive development which seeks to address the discrimination of separate mental health law. A core principle of the new Act is that people are “not to be treated as unable to make a decision…unless all practicable help and support to enable the person to make a decision about the matter have been given without success” (Article 1(4)).
There are people who, without support, would be assessed as incapable of making certain decisions but with the appropriate support are capable of making those decisions, and so to not provide that support infringes their rights, undermines their autonomy and reinforces their exclusion from society. There is very limited research evidence available about people’s experience of the range of approaches provided to support decision-making; what approaches work for whom; and what people’s preferences are for support. This evidence is urgently needed to inform the Code of Practice for the new Act and the wider implementation process.
This presentation provides a summary of findings from a research project which explored how people have, or have not been, supported to make their own decisions. It was funded by Disability Research on Independent Living and Learning (DRILL) and used a coproduction approach between disabled people, Praxis, Mencap and Queen’s. The project involved peer researchers interviewing 20 people with mental health problems and 20 people with intellectual disabilities, to gain an in-depth understanding of their experiences of supported decision-making and their preferences and ideas for how decision-making should be supported in the new legal framework.
The Social Research Association (SRA) has organised a panel discussion in Belfast on 14th March 2018.
This free SRA evening event in Northern Ireland is a panel discussion of how research gets into practice – or doesn’t. What makes this possible, in Northern Ireland and further afield? What are the barriers, and what are the enablers? Does research get into practice more easily in some sectors or disciplines? If so, what can this teach others, and how?
If this appeals, why not complete the registration form here?
Hammersley, M. (2014) The limits of social science. Causal explanation and value relevance
In this short book, Hammersley argues for a social science which eschews grand theorising in favour of the explanation of social phenomena. Drawing inspiration from Max Weber and referring to a range of social theorists and philosophers, Hammersley encourages social scientists to re-think what they are actually doing as researchers in order to create a social science which generates knowledge which is both reliable and valid. Some readers might, of course, reply that there are no problems with social research as an intellectual endeavour, but Hammersley’s purpose seems to be to awake us from our slumbers. This is a task in which he partially succeeds. Hammersley is not, for example, opposed to causal analysis in the social sciences, but argues that we should raise our game by adopting ‘within-case and cross-case analysis’. He also prioritises explanation over theorising with the proviso that ‘all purpose’ explanations are not possible because explanations are ‘always answers to particular questions’. He also argues that value conclusions cannot be derived from evidence, and offers convincing arguments why this might be the case. The consequence of Hammersley’s position is that social research should be limited to making ‘factual’ statements rather than ‘value’ claims. Although much of the book is theoretical, the author grounds his views by referring to social mobility research and to work on the English riots of 2011.
What I most enjoyed about this book is that Hammersley encourages the reader to think hard about social research practice. He is, for example, unconvinced by the view that there is a direct relationship between research and policy outcomes. On the contrary, he says that the relationship is ‘highly mediated and contingent’. Moreover, he recognises that different social science disciplines employ different methods of explanation. One has only to think of the very different approaches of the experimental psychologist and of the historian to appreciate that he has a point. But such explanatory pluralism in the social sciences has a disturbing consequence. If there is no agreed threshold which all social scientists have to meet in order to generate valid and reliable knowledge, then how do these disciplines differ from vocations like investigative or data journalism? In addition, Hammersley draws a sharp distinction between ‘facts’ which are of interest to the social scientist and ‘value claims’ which should be of interest to policymakers and think tanks. If true, it is very hard to see how social researchers can make the case for funding their work in a cultural environment which does not recognise that knowledge has value in itself. Hammersley recognises this point but does not offer any solutions.
This book is not a paean to social science as it is currently practised and will be, to use Hammersley’s own word, a ‘deflationary’ read for some. If, however, you want to read something which may question your preconceptions, this book is a good place to begin.
Review originally published in Research Matters, December 2015