SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Effects and Costs of Personalized Budgets for People with Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using Individual Service Funds (ISFs) to Improve Access to Self-Directed Support for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Participatory Realist Review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article reviews the peer-reviewed and grey literature published from January 1985 to November 2022 that has quantitatively evaluated the effects of personalized budgets for people with disabilities (PwDs), in terms of a range of benefit and cost outcomes. Benefit metrics of interest comprised measures of well-being, service satisfaction and use, quality of life, health, and unmet needs. A search was conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ASSIA, and Social Care Online databases. Based on inclusion criteria and a quality assessment using the Downs and Black Checklist, a final count of 23 studies were identified for in-depth review. Given the heterogeneous nature of the studies, a narrative synthesis, rather than a formal meta-analysis, was undertaken. Taking the relatively scarce and often methodologically limited evidence base at face value, the findings suggest that-overall-personalized budget users tend to benefit in terms of well-being and service satisfaction outcomes, with the exception of mixed effects for people with mental health conditions. Only a minority of studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness or costs-only of personalized budgets, finding mixed results. Two out of the three cost-effectiveness studies find personal budgets to be more cost-effective than alternative options, meaning that the possibly higher costs of personalized budgets may be more than outweighed by additional benefits. Some evidence looking at service use and/or costs only also points to significant reductions in certain service use areas, which at least hints at the potential that personalized budgeting may-in some cases-entail reduced costs. Further research is needed to explore the generalizability of these conclusions and to better capture and understand the factors driving the observed heterogeneity in some of the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.