Search

This paper examines the impact of major social security reform on mental health claimants by analysing the transition to Personal Independence Payment in the UK. Personal Independence Payment was introduced in April 2013, replacing Disability Living Allowance as the main non-means tested disability benefit intended to assist with the additional costs associated with disability or long-term health conditions. It is important to gain a better understanding of how people with mental health problems have experienced this reform. Twelve service users were interviewed for this qualitative research. Analysis identified three main themes: problems with the Personal Independence Payment claims process; problems conveying mental health problems during the assessment process; and positive experiences associated with the transition to Personal Independence Payment. This research demonstrates that major changes in benefit policy are challenging for people with mental health problems, particularly when delivered in a climate of austerity. The UK Government has changed the main disability benefit for disabled adults. From April 2013, Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been phased out and replaced by Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This research found that this significant change caused difficulties for people with mental health problems. Everyone who took part reported increased anxiety, problems with claiming PIP, communicating with benefit officials and the medical assessment. It is important to learn from these problems so that future benefit changes, both in the UK and in other countries, can be developed and rolled-out in ways which are more appropriate for people with mental health problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the experiences of students with chronic illnesses in UK universities. Sixty-seven students with chronic illnesses completed an online survey with open-ended questions about their experiences in higher education. Questions covered four main topics: academic work; university staff; social and extracurricular activities; and participants' miscellaneous opinions. Using thematic analysis, the data were analysed with references to the social model of disability and social representations of chronic illness. Participants wrote of misconceptions surrounding chronic illnesses, a sense of inequality, and feeling undervalued. Many staff members seemed to lack understanding and so 'policed' academic regulations rather than accommodating for their chronic illnesses. However, some participants wrote of social and academic 'allies' who offered understanding and proactive support. The findings add substance to the chronic illness literature with the focus on students at university, and we offer recommendations to universities for improving inclusivity for students with chronic illnesses. Disabled students with energy-limiting chronic illnesses are frustrated by a lack of support and feel that they have fewer opportunities than non-disabled students. Some university staff may hold negative views of disabled individuals, and so provide inadequate support. This can lead to students' reluctance to disclose chronic illnesses. Students with chronic illnesses felt that some staff and peers did not class chronic illnesses as 'real' disabilities and felt that they were perceived lesser than those with visible disabilities. Some students proudly owned the label of 'disabled' to educate others, including staff, who sometimes used university regulations inappropriately to excuse not adjusting support for disabled students. Some staff and students were perceived as supportive allies. Universities must listen to disabled students and those with chronic illnesses to ensure they fulfil their legal and moral obligations of providing equality of opportunity, enabling all students to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Produced and published by the coalition government, the publication of the 2014 Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0-25 years (2014 SENCoP) sets out to overhaul the management of special educational needs (SEN) provision across England and Wales. This paper employs a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the 2014 SENCoP to reveal the ideologies and aims that this policy is built upon. Following a Foucauldian framework of governmentality, this article focuses upon the way in which 'a successful transition to adulthood' is constructed within the policy, particularly in relation to the wider Conservative narrative of a 'Big Society.' Developing this analysis, the article draws upon the current political landscape of a Conservative government and the shift towards the creation of a 'shared society' in attempt to locate 'adulthood' within its wider political, economic, and cultural context. This analysis reveals the neoliberal values underpinning the 2014 SENCoP, whereby educational support is reduced to the practice of shaping and sculpting the future generation of citizens. By deconstructing notions of employment, independence, participation, and health, this article reveals the 2014 SENCoP as a tool of government, written to the demands of the economy rather than the unique needs, aspirations, and ambitions of children and young people labelled with SEN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The qualitative study presented in this paper explored the perspectives of service-users, family members and staff about the impact of travel issues on the lives of mental health in-patients and carers. This topic was chosen because it was prioritised by members of Xplore, a service-user and carer research group, and has received little research attention. Travel problems were a significant issue for many service-users and carers, bound-up with mental health issues and the recovery experience. Travel facilitation through the funding of taxis and the provision of guides was appreciated. A few service-users and carers positively valued distancing from their previous home environment. The meaning of travel issues could only be understood in the context of individuals’ wider lives and relationships. The significance of the findings is discussed in relation to the social model of disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]