Christine Bigby1, Julie Beadle-Brown1,2. 1. Living with Disability Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic., Australia. 2. Tizard Centre, Kent University, Kent, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of life (QOL) of people with intellectual disability living in supported accommodation services is variable, influenced by many possible factors. Various frameworks have attempted to identify these factors without assigning value, direction of influence or relative impact on outcomes. METHODS: A realist review of the literature aimed to expose different propositions about variables influencing QOL outcomes and review the strength of supporting evidence for these, to identify their relative influence. Evidence was reviewed for and against each of five clusters. RESULTS: Evidence was strongest for the presence of staff practices (use of Active Support), front-line management practice (use of practice leadership), culture (enabling and motivating), human resources policies and practice (that support front-line leaders and recruitment of staff with the right values), adequate resources, and small, dispersed and homelike settings. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence informs policy and practice but in some clusters remains limited, warranting further research which measures outcomes on all QOL domains.
BACKGROUND: The quality of life (QOL) of people with intellectual disability living in supported accommodation services is variable, influenced by many possible factors. Various frameworks have attempted to identify these factors without assigning value, direction of influence or relative impact on outcomes. METHODS: A realist review of the literature aimed to expose different propositions about variables influencing QOL outcomes and review the strength of supporting evidence for these, to identify their relative influence. Evidence was reviewed for and against each of five clusters. RESULTS: Evidence was strongest for the presence of staff practices (use of Active Support), front-line management practice (use of practice leadership), culture (enabling and motivating), human resources policies and practice (that support front-line leaders and recruitment of staff with the right values), adequate resources, and small, dispersed and homelike settings. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence informs policy and practice but in some clusters remains limited, warranting further research which measures outcomes on all QOL domains.
Authors: Christine Linehan; Tal Araten-Bergam; Jennifer Baumbusch; Julie Beadle-Brown; Christine Bigby; Gail Birkbeck; Valerie Bradley; Michael Brown; Femmianne Bredewold; Masauso Chirwa; Jialiang Cui; Marta Godoy Gimenez; Tiziano Gomiero; Sarka Kanova; Thilo Kroll; Mac MacLachlan; Brigit Mirfin-Veitch; Jayanthi Narayan; Finiki Nearchou; Adam Nolan; Mary-Ann O'Donovan; Flavia H Santos; Jan Siska; Tim Stainton; Magnus Tideman; Jan Tossebro Journal: HRB Open Res Date: 2020-12-03
Authors: Laura Esteban; Patricia Navas; Miguel Ángel Verdugo; Víctor B Arias Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 3.390