A process of decision-making support: Exploring supported decision-making practice in Canada

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic information and data generated from central participants and their supporters.

Central participant (number of interviews)	Age	Disabilities that influence decision-making*	Status when included in research	Mechanism of supported decision making	Primary supporter (role, number of interviews)	Other supporters in network (role, number of interviews)	Hours of observation (examples of activities observed)
Jenny (2)	50	Intellectual Disability (moderate)	Single, living with brother following death of her mother four months prior, attending day program	Representation agreement	Jack (brother & representative, 2)	Jessica and Carly (nieces, 1) Carla (day program support worker, 1)	20 (Preparing lunch with brother, choosing activities at new day program, performing on stage, visiting local gardens.)
Cecily (2)	49	Intellectual Disability (moderate)	Engaged, living in a group home with four other women, attending day program and drop in centre	Representation agreement	Shirley (sister & representative, 2)	Lisa (key worker at day program, 1) Dean (key worker at drop in centre, 1)	20 (Art class, bowling with friends, coffee at café with sister, shopping at Costco with group home staff, catching the bus with partner.)
Reuben (2)	36	Intellectual Disability (moderate – severe)	Single, living with parents, engages in home based individualised skill development program	Microboard	Sarah (mother & microboard member, 2)	Michael (father & microboard member, 1) Alex (support worker, 1)	16 (Borrowing books at library, shopping, cleaning at voluntary job, cooking curry, recycling cans at local depot.)
Emily	36	Intellectual Disability (moderate – severe)	Single, living in basement apartment under parents’ home, engages in individualised program focused on community participation	Microboard Representation agreement	Peta (mother & mircoboard member/ representative, 2)	Sally (support worker & microboard member, 1)	2** (Making breakfast, getting dressed, afternoon tea with family.)
Natalie (2)	28	Intellectual Disability (mild-moderate) Brain injury (stroke)	Single, living with parents in the family home, engaged in individualised rehabilitation and therapy based program	Microboard Representation agreement	David (father, microboard member, representative, 2) Arleen (mother, microboard member/ representative, 2)	Annie (rehabilitation aide, 1) Matthew (microboard member, 1)	20 (Engaging in speech therapy, shopping for a present, participation at microboard meeting, interacting with band members, catching the bus.)
Brian	49	Intellectual Disability (severe – profound)	Single, living in his own home with a flat mate, receives individualised support to engage in community	Circle of support (not legally recognised in Ontario)	Ailsa (mother, facilitator of circle of support, 2)	Veronica (circle member, 1) Melissa (circle member, 1) Ruby (support worker, 1) Debbie (support coordinator, 1)	14 (Assessment at hospital by doctor, shopping, selecting a meal, visiting nurse for minor procedure, choosing bed time.)
Betty (2)	59	Intellectual Disability (mild)	Engaged, living alone in own apartment, works in self advocacy	Representation Agreement	Terry (friend & health care representative, 1)	Jason (financial representative, 1) Michaela (health care representative, 1)	12 (Preparing for a doctor’s appointment, catching the train, exercise, meeting friends, having coffee with representatives.)

*The disabilities that influence decision making are reported as per the advice of the central participant and their supporters rather than assessment carried out by the researcher.

**While Emily and her network remained research participants, family difficulties prevented the researcher from being able to contact Peta and arrange a similar number of participant observation sessions to other central participants and their networks.

Figure 1. Diagram of the model of the process of decision-making support.