Search

BackgroundMany people with intellectual disability have limited sexual knowledge. Several assessment tools have been developed to assess the sexual knowledge of people with intellectual disability. This paper examines how clinicians’ are using these tools. MethodThis research uses a constructivist grounded theory approach. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians who use sexual knowledge assessment tools. Findings and DiscussionAssessment of sexual knowledge is not routine in disability service provision. Sexual knowledge is typically only assessed when there has been an incident of problematic sexualised behaviour. This reactive approach perpetuates a pathological sexual health discourse. ConclusionsClinicians using assessment tools said that they need the tools to support work they do in relation to sexual health of people with intellectual disability. However, they also reported that the tools have gaps and are not fully meeting their needs or the needs of people with intellectual disability. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background Sexual health remains one of the most overlooked areas of life for people with intellectual disability. In recent years there has been an increasing expectation that this issue will be addressed by disability service providers. In this paper we examine the barriers to sexual health provision of people with intellectual disability as experienced by disability service providers and clinicians. Method This research uses a constructionist grounded theory approach. It was conducted in 2 phases using semistructured qualitative interviews to collect data from disability service managers and clinicians working with people with intellectual disability in New South Wales, Australia. Findings and Discussion Key themes within the interviews -- including funding shortages and a lack of policy guidelines -- were identified as significant administrative barriers to sexual health provision. Myths about the sexual health of people with intellectual disability, family attitudes, and lack of staff training were also identified as barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]