{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030438010393466965, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004454342984409799, 'mean_word_length': 6.057591623036649, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing Traditional‐Residential, Personalised Residential and Personalised Non‐Residential respite services: Quality of life findings from an Irish population with mild–moderate intellectual disabilities

Background: Respite care is an essential support for people with intellectual disabilities and their families; however, there is limited evidence examining different models of respite care. The present research examined quality of life among adults with intellectual disabilities using three different models of respite services in Ireland. Method: A quasi-experimental research method was adopted, which sought to determine differences in quality of life across the three respite care groups using two measures, 1) a self-reported quality of life scale and 2) a quality of life questionnaire filled out by a keyworker. Participants were people with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities (n = 82) and their keyworkers (n = 81). Results: Three distinct models of respite services were assessed: (a) TraditionalResidential respite; (b) Personalised Residential respite, and (c) Personalised NonResidential respite. No differences emerged between the groups on selfreported quality of life; however, the groups differed on a proxy measure of quality of life with respect to Rights, emotional wellbeing, personal development and interpersonal