JCPSLP Vol 18 no 2 July 2016

Table 2. Summary of the 12 studies included in the review in order of study strength (continued)

Citation

Aim

Location

Sample size

Study design

Main findings

Strength/quality

Quantitative and/or mixed-methods study design

Heller & Caldwell, 2005

To determine whether SDF decreases out-of-home placement, particularly institutional placement

Illinois, USA

N = 301 families with children with disabilities receiving SDF versus N = 835 families waiting to receive SDF

Statistical comparison of living arrangements of children with disabilities between those receiving SDF and those on waitlist to receive SDF

After controlling for minority status and age, individuals with disabilities receiving SDF were significantly less likely to be moved into an out-of-home placement ( p < .01).16% of participants on the waiting list were placed in institutional settings compared to 10% of participants receiving SDF Parent outcomes (change pre- to post): – Felt more informed (+23%) – Greater involvement in decision making (+24%) – Autonomy/control – flexibility (+51%) – Felt more supported (+40%) – Greater access to social care services (+53%) – Better quality of life for the child (+22%) – Improvements in parents’ Challenges: – Positive changes were dependent on socio- economic status – Administrative burden -Families not aware of all options social life (+24%) and quality of life (+22%) PWI: Mean score of 84 (comparisons given as the Australian general population mean score = 75, Australian carers = 59) Qualitative themes: Increases/ improvements in: – Physical well-being & independence – Family members’ resilience and independence Outcomes

15/28

Major weaknesses: – Limited

information on groups studied

– Limited

outcome data presented

11/28

Prabhakar, Thom, & Johnson, 2010 and Johnson et al., 2010

126 parents of children (aged 0–18 years) with a disability

Pre-post research design

Evaluation of English national pilot program implementing SDF

United Kingdom

Sites in Coventry, Derbyshire, Essex, Gateshead, Gloucestershire, and Newcastle

Major weaknesses: – No statistical analysis of results – No control group

Purposefully developed survey Qualitative focus group interviews

Robinson et al., 2012

Evaluation of newly

11/28 (3.5/10 on CASP)

Sunshine Coast & Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

N = 37 families with children

Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) survey results at program entry and thereafter including program exit Qualitative focus group interviews (N = 10) every 6 months

implemented SDF program

(aged 0–7 years) with disabilities

Major weaknesses: – No control group – No

randomisation

– No blinding

– Autonomy/control – Social participation – Family participation – Access to mainstream services

57

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 2 2016

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au