The aim of the current pilot study was to evaluate the implementation of a routines-based early childhood intervention (RBECI) model by Australian Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) professionals. The RBECI model consisted of four key components: (a) Routines-Based Interviews (RBIs), (b) participation-based goals, (c) home visits, and (d) community consultations. Five ECI professionals and nine families were recruited from an Australian ECI service. Professionals' ability to implement the model was assessed immediately before and 6 months after receiving training in the model. Individual in-depth interviews elicited professionals' perspectives on implementing the model. Results revealed that professionals' knowledge, understanding, confidence, and home visiting skills increased from pre-to post-intervention, but community consultation skills did not. There were limitations in the quality of RBIs and participation-based goals produced. Overall, professionals were positive about the implementation of the model. The findings provide support for the adoption of the RBECI model in ECI more broadly.
Background Early childhood intervention (ECI) program outcomes remain relatively under-researched. The aim of this study was twofold: (1) to describe outcomes in children and families participating in an Australian ECI service; and (2) to explore child, family, and program characteristics as correlates of these outcomes. Method Twenty-nine families of children with disability were recruited into the study and completed measures of family outcomes, accommodations to disability, perceptions of ECI process of care, and supports received. ECI key workers provided child outcome ratings. Results Associations among disability type, child health, and overall child outcomes were revealed. Process of care was only related to children's social relations outcomes. Family outcomes were positively associated with child care attendance, familycentred practice, and parenting support. Conclusions A range of factors in association with outcomes for both children with disabilities and their families need to be considered in designing practices, policies, and research efforts.
This article highlights the potential for a consumer‐centred model of funding (the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, or the NDIS), to undermine therapeutic approaches in Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) that facilitate self‐determination amongst young children with a disability or developmental delay and their families. This process of undermining is not intentional but a consequence of deeply held cultural assumptions regarding how health care should be delivered and assessed. The article brings together multiple “strands” of evidence and theory regarding self‐determination, disability funding, therapeutic approaches within ECI, and cultural beliefs regarding health to demonstrate how a funding model founded on the principle of self‐determination could potentially undermine a therapeutic approach that supports the very same principle. The potential for this consumer‐centred disability funding (CCDF) scheme to undermine contemporary therapeutic approaches highlights a significant challenge—how to communicate the complexity of the evidence regarding effectiveness of different therapeutic approaches to parents of children with a disability without overwhelming them, and how to ensure that this CCDF scheme facilitates informed, meaningful choices for families.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.