JCPSLP Vol 18 no 2 2016

11 / 60

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 2 2016 57
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
15/28
Major
weaknesses:
– Limited
information on
groups studied
– Limited
outcome data
presented
Prabhakar,
Thom, &
Johnson,
2010 and
Johnson et
al., 2010
Evaluation
of English
national pilot
program
implementing
SDF
United Kingdom
Sites in
Coventry,
Derbyshire,
Essex,
Gateshead,
Gloucestershire,
and Newcastle
126 parents of
children (aged
0–18 years)
with a disability
Pre-post
research
design
Purposefully
developed
survey
Qualitative
focus group
interviews
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’
social life (+24%) and
quality of life (+22%)
Challenges:
– Positive changes were
dependent on socio-
economic status
– Administrative burden
-Families not aware of all
options
11/28
Major
weaknesses:
– No statistical
analysis of
results
– No control
group
Robinson
et al.,
2012
Evaluation
of newly
implemented
SDF program
Sunshine Coast
& Brisbane,
Queensland,
Australia
N = 37 families
with children
(aged 0–7
years) with
disabilities
Personal
Wellbeing
Index (PWI)
survey results
at program
entry and
every 6
months
thereafter
including
program exit
Qualitative
focus group
interviews (N
= 10)
Outcomes
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
– Autonomy/control
– Social participation
– Family participation
– Access to mainstream
services
11/28
(3.5/10 on CASP)
Major
weaknesses:
– No control
group
– No
randomisation
– No blinding