The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy: A focus group study

Penny Llewellyn; Ruth Northway

doi:10.1177/1744629508095726

The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy: A focus group study

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This article discusses the first stage of a grounded theory study in which people with intellectual disabilities participated in focus groups to explore their definitions of advocacy and their advocacy support needs. Participants' ideas were influenced by their situation, the availability and type of support offered, and their relationships with supporters. Many different definitions of advocacy were revealed which were classified as reactive or proactive advocacy at micro, meso or macro level. The aim of advocacy was seen as empowerment, but this occurred only when support was readily available, concentrated on people's abilities, and facilitated opportunities for them to exert maximum possible control over their lives. © 2008 SAGE Publications.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	213-228
Number of pages	16
Journal	Journal of Intellectual Disabilities
Volume	12
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629508095726 https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629508095726
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2008

Keywords

Advocacy
Advocacy support
Barriers to advocacy
Empowerment
article
clinical article
controlled study
empowerment
female
grounded theory
health care availability
health care need
human
human relation
intellectual impairment
male
patient advocacy
patient autonomy
patient care
personal experience
priority journal
self control
social support

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1177/1744629508095726
10.1177/1744629508095726Licence: Unspecified

Cite this

@article{58024f93094746b0b4a89951e5bf7360,

title = "The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy: A focus group study",

abstract = "This article discusses the first stage of a grounded theory study in which people with intellectual disabilities participated in focus groups to explore their definitions of advocacy and their advocacy support needs. Participants' ideas were influenced by their situation, the availability and type of support offered, and their relationships with supporters. Many different definitions of advocacy were revealed which were classified as reactive or proactive advocacy at micro, meso or macro level. The aim of advocacy was seen as empowerment, but this occurred only when support was readily available, concentrated on people's abilities, and facilitated opportunities for them to exert maximum possible control over their lives. {\textcopyright} 2008 SAGE Publications.",

keywords = "Advocacy, Advocacy support, Barriers to advocacy, Empowerment, article, clinical article, controlled study, empowerment, female, grounded theory, health care availability, health care need, human, human relation, intellectual impairment, male, patient advocacy, patient autonomy, patient care, personal experience, priority journal, self control, social support",

author = "Penny Llewellyn and Ruth Northway",

year = "2008",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1177/1744629508095726",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

pages = "213--228",

journal = "Journal of Intellectual Disabilities",

issn = "1744-6295",

publisher = "SAGE Publications",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy: A focus group study

AU - Llewellyn, Penny

AU - Northway, Ruth

PY - 2008/9/1

Y1 - 2008/9/1

N2 - This article discusses the first stage of a grounded theory study in which people with intellectual disabilities participated in focus groups to explore their definitions of advocacy and their advocacy support needs. Participants' ideas were influenced by their situation, the availability and type of support offered, and their relationships with supporters. Many different definitions of advocacy were revealed which were classified as reactive or proactive advocacy at micro, meso or macro level. The aim of advocacy was seen as empowerment, but this occurred only when support was readily available, concentrated on people's abilities, and facilitated opportunities for them to exert maximum possible control over their lives. © 2008 SAGE Publications.

AB - This article discusses the first stage of a grounded theory study in which people with intellectual disabilities participated in focus groups to explore their definitions of advocacy and their advocacy support needs. Participants' ideas were influenced by their situation, the availability and type of support offered, and their relationships with supporters. Many different definitions of advocacy were revealed which were classified as reactive or proactive advocacy at micro, meso or macro level. The aim of advocacy was seen as empowerment, but this occurred only when support was readily available, concentrated on people's abilities, and facilitated opportunities for them to exert maximum possible control over their lives. © 2008 SAGE Publications.

KW - Advocacy

KW - Advocacy support

KW - Barriers to advocacy

KW - Empowerment

KW - article

KW - clinical article

KW - controlled study

KW - empowerment

KW - female

KW - grounded theory

KW - health care availability

KW - health care need

KW - human

KW - human relation

KW - intellectual impairment

KW - male

KW - patient advocacy

KW - patient autonomy

KW - patient care

KW - personal experience

KW - priority journal

KW - self control

KW - social support

U2 - 10.1177/1744629508095726

DO - 10.1177/1744629508095726

M3 - Article

SN - 1744-6295

VL - 12

SP - 213

EP - 228

JO - Journal of Intellectual Disabilities

JF - Journal of Intellectual Disabilities

IS - 3

ER -

The views and experiences of people with intellectual disabilities concerning advocacy: A focus group study

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this