Page 20 - Demo

Chapter 118and challenging situations (Griffiths & Smith, 2016). This is especially the case when clients%u2019 communication and behaviour transgress social and cultural norms or are detrimental to oneself or others. Within the field of intellectual disability care, this type of behaviour is labelled with the generic term challenging behaviour (Emerson & Einfeld, 2011). Challenging behaviour includes internalising behaviour, such as depression, anxiety, or self-harm, as well as externalising behaviour, such as stereotypic repetitive behaviour and verbal and physical aggression towards properties or other people (Bowring, 2017). Challenging behaviour may have a direct impact on health, quality of life, and quality of care (Bowring, 2019; Bowring & Hastings, 2017). Prevalence studies showed that in the overall population of people with intellectual disabilities, 18.1% displayed forms of challenging behaviour (Bowring, 2017), while in specific populations prevalence is much higher. For example, prevalence of challenging behaviour in school settings with children with intellectual disabilities was 53%, with 36.4% self-injurious behaviour, 30.2% aggressive/destructive behaviour, and 25.9% stereotyped behaviour (Nicholls et al., 2020). For people with profound multiple intellectual disabilities, a prevalence of 45% for aggressive and destructive behaviour and 82% for self-injurious behaviour was found (Poppes et al., 2010).Quality of care for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour varied over the decades, as revealed in archival studies on violence in residential institutions from 1945 to 2015 (Wissink et al., 2019). Initially, care was medically orientated, representing a widely held approach that had been prevalent since the 1800s, wherein disabilities were perceived as physical abnormalities (Van Gennep, 1997). Care for people with intellectual disabilities was focused on making their bodies and minds conform to societal norms. This caused significant harm to people with intellectual disabilities, by treating odd and/or challenging behaviour as a defect or pathology, that had to be solved with medicinal or surgical interventions. Moreover, this focus often led to discriminatory practices, rather than recognizing and valuing the inherent worth of diversity of individuals (Zaks, 2022).