JCPSLP Vol 18 no 2 July 2016

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

Crosby, 2010

Evaluation of SDF for ‘In Control’ – an English non-profit organisation

Newham, England, United Kingdom

N = 47 parents of children with disabilities

In-house evaluation questionnaire

Strongest outcomes, SDF “helped” or “helped a lot” in: – Fit and healthy (78%) – Feelings and Emotions (85%) – Enjoying childhood (81%) – Taking part in school life (81%) – Household finances (73%) – Support in parenting role (78%) – Quality of life (73%) – Relationship with children (78%) Strongest Outcomes, 50% + improvement reported for (*individual results not provided): – Fit and healthy – Feelings and Emotions – Enjoying childhood – Taking part in school life – Household finances – Support in parenting role – Quality of life – Relationship with children Four themes identified as barriers: – Lack of information/advice – Limited availability and choice in local service options – Complexity of managing funds – Higher costs and fewer services

4.5/28

Major weaknesses:

Methodological details missing, no statistical analysis, no blinding of participants/ researchers, no control group

Crosby, 2011

Follow-up to Crosby (2010):

Various sites, England, United Kingdom

N = 67 parents of children with disabilities

In-house evaluation questionnaire

5/28

Major weaknesses:

Evaluation of SDF for ‘In Control’ – an English non-profit organisation

Methodological details missing, no statistical analysis, no blinding of participants/ researchers, no control group

Qualitative study design

Dew et al., 2013

Evaluation of the impacts of SDF for people living in rural and remote areas

Qualitative focus group interviews Grounded Theory Approach

Rural western New South Wales, Australia

4.5/10

N = 8 mothers and 2 fathers of 14 children aged 2–8 years) with disabilities Five carers had 2 children with disabilities 13/14 children were diagnosed with autism, 1/14 children was diagnosed with cerebral palsy N = 12 parents of children (aged 0–20 years) with disabilities

Major weaknesses: – Lacked

justification for research design

Ottmann et al., 2009

Longitudinal evaluation of newly implemented SDF program

Melbourne, Australia

Longitudinal qualitative participatory action research at months, 36 months, and 48 months post- enrolment the points in time: 6

Major themes identified: – Greater sense of autonomy and independence – Improved flexibility and quality of care – Over time, felt greater sense of isolation, particularly at crisis points – Administrative burden and confusion – Perceived overall less funding available than prior to SDF

4.5/10

Major weaknesses: – Limited

information on recruitment of participants

58

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 2 2016

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology