The following article provides a snapshot of the current self-direction movement within the disability sector across the industrialised world, with particular emphasis on the Australian context. As a global movement, self-direction has been in progress for several decades through a variety of implemented responses. Despite implementation variation, all self-direction models aim to facilitate individual control and decision making in care and support services. We describe self-direction, its various models and programs, and explore its benefits and challenges. We conclude by making broad recommendations for decision makers involved in self-direction. In particular, we offer a hierarchical decision tree that can be used to inform policy decisions at a systems -government policy -and organisational level.

Results demonstrate that corridors not only have an important role as connective spaces but are also used as flexible, multipurpose spaces for delivery of quality care and patient experiences. Future design should consider how these spaces can more deliberately support and contribute to patient and staff experiences of rehabilitation.

This research aimed to synthesize housing supports funded by 20 major insurance-based schemes for Australians with an acquired brain injury (ABI) or spinal cord injury (SCI). Publicly available grey literature (i.e., primary information from respective scheme websites) was systematically reviewed and compared. There were notable differences between the different scheme types (disability vs. workers compensation schemes) and across different States. Collectively, scheme funding was more likely to be focused on housing infrastructure and service delivery, than on tenancy support. Australians who are least likely to benefit from the current funding context are those whose home cannot be reasonably modified, are wanting to build or purchase a new home, do not have suitable, alternative short- or long-term housing options if their current home is not feasible, require support to maintain occupancy of their home or financial assistance to move into a new home, may benefit from case management services, family supports, and assistance animals, and/or cannot afford their rent or home loan repayments. Several interactions, inconsistencies, contradictions, and gaps that warrant further attention were also revealed. This review has highlighted the need for policy makers to provide transparent information about housing entitlements for individuals with ABI or SCI, and their families. A unified, evidence-based framework to guide the funding of housing and housing support services may increase the consistency of interventions available to people with ABI or SCI and, therefore, improve outcomes.

Objective: Housing for people with acquired brain injury (ABI) or spinal cord injury (SCI) remains a significant issue in Australia and internationally. This review examined the current research evidence regarding the efficacy of housing alternatives for adults with ABI or SCI in relation to four principal outcomes of interest: the person’s (1) community integration/participation, (2) independence, (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) quality of life. The review also sought to identify how the reported efficacy of the housing alternatives might be impacted by individual factors. Method: For this systematic review, quantitative empirical, peer-reviewed research published after 1 January 2003 was sought. Ten journal articles met the eligibility criteria. None of the included studies comprised an adult SCI sample. Results: The research identified lower levels of community integration/participation, independence, psychosocial well-being and quality of life for adults (particularly younger adults) with ABI living in ‘structured settings’ (i.e., residential care) compared to those living in ‘home-like’ environments (i.e., private homes) and ‘disability-specific’ settings (i.e., shared supported accommodation, group homes, foster care homes, cluster units). Conclusion: More research is needed to compare ‘home-like’ and ‘disability-specific’ settings, and individual housing models more generally (i.e., living at home with friends vs with family vs living in shared supported accommodation vs living in residential care). This review identified a number of limitations in the current evidence base and several important directions for future research. Policymakers, architects, designers, builders, developers, funding agencies, international researchers as well as people with ABI or SCI and their families may benefit from the findings of this review.