12 / 60
58
JCPSLP
Volume 18, Number 2 2016
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
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%)
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):
Evaluation
of SDF for
‘In Control’
– an English
non-profit
organisation
Various sites,
England, United
Kingdom
N = 67 parents
of children with
disabilities
In-house
evaluation
questionnaire
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
5/28
Major
weaknesses:
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
Rural western
New South
Wales, Australia
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
Qualitative
focus group
interviews
Grounded
Theory
Approach
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
4.5/10
Major
weaknesses:
–
Lacked
justification for
research design
Ottmann et
al., 2009
Longitudinal
evaluation
of newly
implemented
SDF program
Melbourne,
Australia
N = 12 parents
of children (aged
0–20 years)
with disabilities
Longitudinal
qualitative
participatory
action
research at
the points
in time: 6
months, 36
months, and
48 months
post-
enrolment
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