Verdonschot M M L, de Witte L P, Reichrath E, Buntinx W H E, Curfs L M G
Vilans, Hoensbroek/Governor Kremers Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J Intellect Disabil Res. 2009 Apr;53(4):303-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01144.x. Epub 2008 Dec 11.
A systematic review of the literature.
To investigate community participation of persons with an intellectual disability (ID) as reported in empirical research studies.
A systematic literature search was conducted for the period of 1996-2006 on PubMed, CINAHL and PSYCINFO. Search terms were derived from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Three investigators assessed the relevance of the initially identified studies using predefined content and methodological selection criteria. Included domains of community participation were: (1) domestic life; (2) interpersonal interactions and relationships; (3) major life areas; and (4) community, civic and social life.
Of 2936 initial hits, 23 quantitative studies eventually met the selection criteria and were included in the study. Only two studies are based on a theoretical framework. Research instruments were various and were most often ad hoc and not validated. The average number of persons in the social network of people with ID appears to be 3.1, one of them usually being a professional service staff member. People with ID are 3-4 times less employed than non-disabled peers; they are less likely to be employed competitively and are more likely to work in sheltered workshops or in segregated settings than those with other disabilities. People with ID are less likely to be involved in community groups, and leisure activities are mostly solitary and passive in nature. Most of the people with ID had been accompanied in an activity by training/therapeutic staff.
It can be concluded that on the basis of empirical evidence, within the time frame of this literature search, little is known about community participation of people with ID. Many researchers did not clearly define community participation and were concerned with limited areas of community participation; research is seldom based on a theoretical framework. Most studies focus on people with mild ID, and there are few reports of the subjects' sample. However, one conclusion can consistently be drawn from the review: people with ID living in community settings participate more than people living in a segregated setting, but their participation level is still much lower than non-disabled and other disability groups.
对文献进行系统综述。
调查实证研究中所报告的智力残疾者的社区参与情况。
于1996年至2006年期间在PubMed、CINAHL和PSYCINFO数据库中进行系统的文献检索。检索词源自《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》。三名研究人员使用预先确定的内容和方法选择标准评估最初检索到的研究的相关性。社区参与的纳入领域包括：（1）家庭生活；（2）人际互动与关系；（3）主要生活领域；以及（4）社区、公民和社会生活。
在最初检索到的2936条记录中，最终有23项定量研究符合选择标准并被纳入本研究。仅有两项研究基于理论框架。研究工具多种多样，且大多是临时编制的，未经验证。智力残疾者社交网络中的平均人数似乎为3.1人，其中通常有一名专业服务人员。智力残疾者的就业人数比非残疾同龄人少3至4倍；与其他残疾者相比，他们在竞争性就业中的可能性较小，且更有可能在庇护工厂或隔离环境中工作。智力残疾者参与社区团体的可能性较小，休闲活动大多是独自进行且性质较为被动。大多数智力残疾者在活动中都有培训/治疗人员陪同。
可以得出结论，基于实证证据，在本次文献检索的时间范围内，对于智力残疾者的社区参与情况了解甚少。许多研究人员未明确界定社区参与，且关注的社区参与领域有限；研究很少基于理论框架。大多数研究聚焦于轻度智力残疾者，关于研究对象样本的报告较少。然而，从该综述中可以始终得出一个结论：生活在社区环境中的智力残疾者比生活在隔离环境中的人参与度更高，但他们的参与水平仍远低于非残疾者和其他残疾群体。
