Premium
A Proposed Framework for an Integrated Process of Improving Quality of Life
Author(s) -
Schippers Alice,
Zuina,
Brown Ivan
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of policy and practice in intellectual disabilities
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.592
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1741-1130
pISSN - 1741-1122
DOI - 10.1111/jppi.12111
Subject(s) - process management , conceptual framework , process (computing) , conceptual model , congruence (geometry) , service (business) , work (physics) , quality (philosophy) , quality of life (healthcare) , computer science , psychology , knowledge management , operations management , business , management science , sociology , social psychology , marketing , economics , engineering , social science , database , operating system , philosophy , epistemology , psychotherapist , mechanical engineering
The need for quality of life, both as a concept and as a measure, to be applied to policy and practice has been noted in the disability literature for several years. In 2012, S chalock and V erdugo introduced a conceptual model to help service organizations evaluate if congruence exists among their systems, policies, and practices and, if misalignments exist, to make changes through policy and systems change. Their model focuses on two levels, system‐level processes and organization‐level practices, at three consecutive stages of use: inputs, throughputs, and outputs. In this article, the authors extend the work of S chalock and V erdugo by adding a third level of application, individual‐ and family‐level living, and propose the inclusion of outcomes as a fourth stage of use representing a consequence of outputs. We recognize the dynamic interaction among all components of the conceptual framework and, like S chalock and V erdugo, argue for alignment both vertically (system, organization, and individual and family living levels) and horizontally (inputs, throughputs, outputs, and outcomes) within our revised conceptual framework. Based on this, the authors propose that quality of life outcomes (the ongoing effects of outputs) should be an ultimate focus of service organizations and policy development if quality of life is to be enhanced for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.