Few studies have considered policies which underpin the promotion of positive behaviour support (PBS). The present study examined policy beliefs about PBS and their relationship to restrictive practices.
Methods
Discourse network analysis (a combination of critical discourse analysis and social network analysis) was used.
Results
A total of 11 policies were examined from which 38 belief statements were coded. One cluster was identified which promoted 13 dominant beliefs. Dominant discourses related to law, safety and the environment were evident. A conceptual representation of the shared PBS beliefs demonstrated contradictions in PBS policy.
Conclusions
There is evidence that PBS policies have become informal rules for using restrictive practices, not reducing them. They are also acting as surrogates to debate conflicts between political, personal and bureaucratic interests. Three recommendations for improved PBS policy are provided.
AgeeJ.Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. Int J Qual Stud Education2009; 22(4): 431–447.
2.
Algorithmics Group. Visone. University of Konstanz, 2019, Retrived From: http://visone.ethz.ch/.Version 2.18[computer software]
3.
AllenDMcGillPSmithM. The role of positive behavioral supports in reducing the use of restrictive practices. In: LiebermanRPLaVignaGW (eds). New Directions in the Treatment of Aggressive Behavior for Persons with Mental and Developmental Disabilities. New York: Nova Science; 2016, pp. 391–413.
4.
AltermarkN.The post-institutional era: Visions of history in research on intellectual disability. Disabil Soc2017; 32(9): 1315–1332.
BornsteinJ. “If they’re on tier 1, there are really no serious concerns that we can see:” PBIS medicalizes compliant behavior. J Ethnographic Qual Res2015; 9(4): 247–267.
8.
CadwalladerJ. R.SpivakovskyC.SteeleL., et al. Institutional violence against people with disability: Recent legal and political developments. Curr Issues Criminal Justice2018; 29(3): 259–272.
9.
ChandlerKWhiteBWillmottL. Safeguarding rights to liberty and security where people with disability are subject to detention and restraint: A rights-based approach (part one). Psychiatr Psychol L2018; 25(3): 465–484.
10.
ConsidineM. Public Policy. A Critical Approach. Macmillan, 1994.
11.
CrammondBCareyG. What is policy and where do we look for it when we want to research it?J Epidemiol Community Health2017; 71: 404–408.
12.
Department of Social Services. National framework for reducing and eliminating the use of restrictive practices in the disability service sector. Retrived From: https://tinyurl.com/yx6hn51o (2014.
13.
DeveauR.LeitchS. (2020) Implementation of policy regarding restrictive practices in England. Tizard Learning Disability Review25(1): 1–8.
14.
DeveauR.McDonnellA.As the last resort: reducing the use of restrictive physical interventions using organisational approaches. Br J Learn Disabilities2009; 37(3): 172–177.
15.
DeveauRMcGillP. (2007). As the last resort: Reducing the use of restrictive physical interventions. Retrived From:https://tinyurl.com/y47k7uo8
16.
DunlapG.SailorW.HornerR. H., et al. Overview and history of positive behavior support. In: SailorWDunlapGSugaiG, et al (eds). Handbook of positive behaviour support. New York: Springer; 2009, pp. 3–16.
17.
ElfordH.BeailN.ClarkeZ. (2010) ‘A very fine line’: Parents’ experiences of using restraint with their adult son/daughter with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabilities23(1): 75–84.
18.
FaircloughNorman (2001) Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage, 121–138.
19.
FellT. Explaining policy failure in Swedish game management. Polit Sci J2011; 113(2): 191–208.
20.
FishRCulshawE. The last resort? Staff and client perspectives on physical intervention. J Intellect Disabil2005; 9(2): 93–107.
21.
FittonLJonesDR. Restraint of adults with intellectual disabilities: A critical review of the prevalence and characteristics associated with its use. J Intellect Disabil2020; 24(2): 268–283.
22.
GaskinCJMcVillyKRMcGillivrayJA. Initiatives to reduce the use of seclusion and restraints on people with developmental disabilities: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis. Res Dev Disabil2013; 34(11): 3946–3961.
23.
GibsonF. L.RogersA. A.SmithA. D. M., et al. Factors influencing the use of decision support tools in the development and design of conservation policy. Environ Sci Pol2017; 70: 1–8.
24.
GoreNJMcGillPToogoodS, et al.Definition and scope for positive behavioural support. Int J Positive Behav Support2013; 3(2): 14–23.
25.
HaiderSIAnsariZVaughanL, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy in Victorian adults with intellectual disability. Res Dev Disabil2014; 35(11): 3071–3080.
26.
HamiltonJ. T.SchroederC. H.Strategic regulators and the choice of rulemaking procedures: The selection of formal vs. informal rules in regulating hazardous waste. L Contemp Probl1994; 57(2): 111–160.
27.
Haydon-LaurelutM.NunkoosingK.Causing trouble: The language of learning disability and challenging behaviour. Tizard Learn Disabil Rev2016; 21(3): 144–149.
28.
HaywardB. A.McKay-BrownL.PoedS.Positive behaviour support in Australian disability policy, and its future with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Res Pract Intellect Developmental Disabilities2019; 6(1): 14–23.
29.
HaywardBrentMcKay-BrownLisaPoedShiralee (2021) Geographical networks in the divergence of Australian positive behavior support policy. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12398, In press.
30.
HaywardBAPoedSMcKay-BrownL. Analysing text in positive behavioural support (PBS) policy: A pilot study. Int J Positive Behav Support2017; 7(2): 37–48.
31.
HeadB. W.Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Pol Soc2019; 38(2): 180–197.
32.
HeyvaertMSaenenLMaesB, et al. Systematic review of restraint interventions for challenging behaviour among persons with intellectual disabilities: Focus on experiences. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil2015; 28(2): 61–80.
33.
HornerR. H.Positive behavior supports. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl2000; 15(2): 97–105.
34.
JavaidA.GhebruS.NawazJ., et al. Use of positive behaviour support plan for challenging behaviour in autism. Prog Neurol Psychiatry2020; 24(4): 14–16.
35.
Jenkins-SmithHCNohrstedtDWeibleCM, et al. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In: SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (eds). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview; 2014, pp. 183–223.
36.
KargerG.DaviesB.JenkinsR., et al. (2018) Staff perceptions of positive behavioural support in a secure forensic adult mental health setting. Journal of Forensic Practice20(1): 42–53.
37.
KlaverM.BildtA.BruinsmaE., et al. First steps toward positive behavior support in the Netherlands: A pilot study exploring the effectiveness of a training for staff. J Pol Pract Intellect Disabilities2020; 17(3): 188–194.
38.
KukkonenA.Ylä-AnttilaT.BroadbentJ.Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States. Public Admin2017; 95(3): 713–729.
39.
LeaM.BeaupertF.BevanN., et al. A disability aware approach to torture prevention? Australian OPCAT ratification and improved protections for people with disability. Aust J Hum Rights2018; 24(1): 70–96.
40.
LeifeldP. (2020) Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda. Politics and Governance8(2): 180–183.
41.
LoyensK.Towards a custom-made whistleblowing policy. Using grid-group cultural theory to match policy measures to different styles of peer reporting. J Bus Ethics2013; 114(2): 239–249.
42.
MacDonaldA.McGillP.Outcomes of staff training in positive behaviour support: A systematic review. J Dev Phys Disabil2013; 25: 17–33.
43.
McGillPVanonoLCloverW, et al. Reducing challenging behaviour of adults with intellectual disabilities in supported accommodation: A cluster randomized controlled trial of setting-wide positive behaviour support. Res Dev Disabil2018; 81: 143–154.
MurphyG.Kelly-PikeA.McGillP., et al. Physical interventions with people with intellectual disabilities: Staff training and policy frameworks. J Appl Res Int Dis2003; 16(2): 115–125.
46.
NieM. Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict. Pol Sci2003; 36(3–4): 307–341.
RichardsM. (2020) Whorlton Hall, Winterbourne … person-centred care is long dead for people with learning disabilities and autism. Disabil Soc35(3): 500–505.
50.
RichardsonB.WebberL. S.LambrickF.Factors associated with long-term use of restrictive interventions. J Intellect Developmental Disabil2020; 45(2): 159–166.
51.
RickardE. D.ChanJ.MerrimanB.Issues emanating from the implementation of policies on restraint use with people with intellectual disabilities. J Pol Pract Intellect Disabilities2013; 10(3): 252–259.
52.
RidingT. (2016) Exorcising restraint: Reducing the use of restrictive interventions in a secure learning disability service. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour7(4): 176–185.
53.
RipbergerJ. T.GuptaK.SilvaC. L., et al. Cultural theory and the measurement of deep core beliefs within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Stud J2014; 42(4): 509–527.
54.
RomijnA.FrederiksB. J. M.Restriction on restraints in the care for people with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands: Lessons learned from Australia, UK, and United States. J Pol Pract Intellect Disabilities2012; 9(2): 127–133.
55.
RyuS.The combination of critical discourse analysis and social network analysis. In: HuberMFroehlichDE (eds). Analyzing Group Interactions. A Guidebook for Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods. Abingdon: Routledge; 2020, pp. 96–106.
56.
RyuS. (2020a) The role of mixed methods in conducting design-based research. Educ Psychol55(4): 232–243.
57.
SchippersB.FrederiksB. J. M.van NieuwenhuijzenM., et al. Reliability and feasibility of systematic registration of coercive measures in care for people with intellectual disabilities. J Pol Pract Intellect Disabilities2018; 15(3): 202–213.
58.
SøndenaaEDragstenFWhittingtonR. Practitioner explanations for the increasing use of restraint measures in the care of people with intellectual disabilities in Norway 2000–11. J Pol Pract Intellect Disabilities2015; 12(1): 58–63.
VerdJMLozaresC. Reconstructing social networks through text analysis. In: DominguezSHollsteinB (eds). Mixed Methods Social Networks Research. Design and Applications. New York: Cambridge; 2014, pp. 269–304.
61.
WilliamsDEGrossettDL. Reduction of restraint of people with intellectual disabilities: An organizational behavior management (OBM) approach. Res Dev Disabil2011; 32(6): 2336–2339.
