Outcomes in Different Residential Settings for People With Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Large-scale reviews of research in deinstitutionalization and community living were last conducted about 10 years ago. Here we surveyed research from 1997 to 2007. Articles were included if the researchers based the study on original research, provided information on the participants and methodology, compared residential arrangements for adults with intellectual disability, and were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Sixty-eight articles were found. In 7 of 10 domains, the majority of studies show that community-based services are superior to congregate arrangements. These studies provide more evidence of the benefits of deinstitutionalization and community living and continue to indicate variability in results, suggesting that factors other than the basic model of care are important in determining outcomes.

Moving Toward an Inclusive Education System: Lessons from the U.S. and Their Potential Application in the Czech Republic and Other Central and Eastern European Countries

“…As numerous authors suggest, for students with the most significant support needs, there are skills beyond the academic (i.e., adaptive skills) that play a crucial role in maximizing life-long inclusion and independence (Dixon, 2007;Kozma, Mansell, & Beadle-Brown, 2009). Some educators who have not supported the implementation of IE have questioned the capacity of the system effectively to teach these skills if a student spends a majority of classroom time in academically-focused regular education settings.…”

Comparing costs and outcomes of supported living with group homes in Australia

“…A significant body of research shows that overall the quality of life (QOL) outcomes in these services exceeds those of institutional or clustered arrangements (Kozma, Mansell, & Beadle-Brown, 2009;). However, the outcomes between services are variable, with severity of disability, and staff and managerial practices the key determinants .…”

Choice and control for people ageing with intellectual disability in group homes

“…Ever since the implementation of the normalisation principle (10) in the 1970s, the concept of participation has retained an exceptional position within disability policy, as an outcome measure of support and service related to people with ID (9,(11)(12). Additionally, in an international context, the level of participation in the home, community, work and social arenas is used as an indicator of outcomes in group homes for people with ID (8,13). How to measure participation and separate it from activity is, however, disputed within a wider international disability and rehabilitation context (14)(15)(16).…”