Fleming, Padraic, McGilloway, Sinéad, Hernon, Marian, Furlong, Mairéad, O'Doherty, Siobhain, Keogh, Fiona and Stainton, Tim (2019) Individualised funding interventions to improve health and social care outcomes for people with a disability: a mixed-methods systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3. ISSN 1891-1803
Preview
0268_DCG_Fleming_Individualised_funding.pdf
Download (4MB) | Preview
Abstract
The World Health Organisation estimates that 15% of the world’s population live with a disability
and that this number will continue to grow into the future, but with the attendant challenge of
increasing unmet need due to poor access to health and social care (WHO, 2013). Historically, the
types of supports available to people with a disability were based on medical needs only. More
recently, however, the importance of social care needs, such as keeping active and socialising, has
been recognised (Malley et al., 2012). There is now an international policy imperative for people
with a disability to live autonomous, self-determined lives whereby they are empowered and as
independent as possible, choosing their supports and self-directing their lives (Perreault &
Vallerand, 2007; Saebu, Sørensen, & Halvari, 2013).
One way to achieve self-determination is by means of a personal budget (United Nations, 2006).
Personal budgets are just one example of many terms used to describe individualised funding – a
mechanism to provide personalised and self-directed supports for people with a disability, which
places them at the centre of decision-making around how and when they are supported (Carr,
2010). Individualised funding – which is rooted in the Independent Living Movement (Jon Glasby
& Littlechild, 2009) - has evolved to take many forms. These include, for example, directpayments,
whereby funds are given directly to the person with a disability who then self-manages
this money to meet their individual needs, capabilities, life circumstances and aspirations
(Áiseanna Tacaíochta, 2014a). Alternatively, a microboard, brokerage model, or ‘managed’
personal budget provide a similar amount of freedom for the person with a disability, but an
intermediary service assumes responsibility for administrative tasks, while sometimes also
providing support, guidance and information to enable the person to successfully plan, arrange and
manage their supports or care plans (Carr, 2010). Other types of models also exist, largely guided
by country-specific contexts, such as social benefits systems.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Keywords: | Individualised funding interventions; health and social care; outcomes; people; disability; mixed-methods; systematic review; |
Academic Unit: | Faculty of Science and Engineering > Psychology |
Item ID: | 10535 |
Identification Number: | 10.4073/csr.2019.3 |
Depositing User: | Dr. Sinéad McGilloway |
Date Deposited: | 21 Feb 2019 12:39 |
Journal or Publication Title: | Campbell Systematic Reviews |
Publisher: | The Campbell Collaboration |
Refereed: | Yes |
Related URLs: | |
URI: | https://mu.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/10535 |
Use Licence: | This item is available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike Licence (CC BY-NC-SA). Details of this licence are available here |
Repository Staff Only (login required)
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year