Co-Constructing Inclusive Housing for People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Multi-Stakeholder Expert Consensus Study
Background Inclusive housing for people with intellectual disabilities is central to social justice, health and quality of life. Yet many existing models retain institutional features and insufficiently reflect the preferences of those directly affected. Advancing inclusive housing requires particip...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2026 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO) |
| Repositorio: | RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:rio_________::122519a87e9e8c695eddf5932af18b73 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10433/26463 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Intellectual disability Inclusive housing Social determinants of health Residential inclusion Supportive environments Multi-stakeholder consensus Inclusive research |
| Sumario: | Background Inclusive housing for people with intellectual disabilities is central to social justice, health and quality of life. Yet many existing models retain institutional features and insufficiently reflect the preferences of those directly affected. Advancing inclusive housing requires participatory processes that integrate experiential, professional, academic, and policy perspectives. Objective To achieve multi-stakeholder expert consensus to validate an analytical framework for assessing inclusive housing models for people with intellectual disabilities, informing the development of person-centered and rights-based residential solutions. Methods A multi-stakeholder expert panel (N = 66), comprising five stakeholder groups— activists with intellectual disabilities, family members, professionals, researchers, public administration and housing providers representatives— evaluated 38 housing items across four interrelated environmental domains (physical, social, supportive, and symbolic). Quantitative ratings and qualitative justifications were analyzed to identify consensus patterns and refine the framework. Results High level of consensus were observed across expert types, particularly regarding supportive, symbolic and physical dimensions. Priority elements included access to social protection systems, autonomy, safety, functional and adaptable design, and stable, well-trained support staff. Relational and symbolic aspects, such as personalization, dignity, and a sense of belonging, were strongly endorsed. Divergent views emerged mainly regarding residential typologies, highlighting the need for flexible housing options responsive to individual preferences and support needs. Conclusions Inclusive housing extends beyond physical accessibility to encompass ethical, relational, structural, and symbolic dimensions shaping autonomy, participation and well-being. Multi-stakeholder processes consensus can contribute to bridging policy frameworks and lived experience, supporting housing models that promote health, equality, and full citizenship. |
|---|