Social inclusion and community participation of individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities.

Amado et al. (2013) read every paper they could find on social inclusion for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

They did not run a new experiment. They simply mapped what had and had not been studied.

Their big worry: most research tracks only people who use paid day or residential programs.

The review found huge blind spots. We know little about self-advocates who live in their own homes.

We also know little about what neighbors, store clerks, or faith groups think about inclusion.

In short, the literature describes services, not real community life.

Matson et al. (2009) showed that transport and public acceptance are the main environmental barriers. Novak et al. agree and add that we barely measure those attitudes.

Slater et al. (2020) later proved Novak right by surveying thousands of citizens. Higher education and prior contact predicted warmer support for inclusion.

van der Miesen et al. (2024) delivered hard numbers: 78 % of UK health studies still lock out adults with ID. This extends Novak’s gap into medical research.

Rosencrans et al. (2021) offers the fix. Partner with primary-care clinics and clubs to reach the 59 % of adults with IDD who use no services.

If you write goals for community participation, check where your data come from. Most studies sample agency clients, so their barriers may not fit self-advocates who already live independently. Use Rosencrans et al. (2021) tactics—tap libraries, churches, and general-practice waiting rooms—to hear the silent majority. Then target the attitude and transport barriers flagged by Matson et al. (2009) and Slater et al. (2020).