Personal, Social and Vocational Outcomes of Inclusive University for People With Intellectual Disability.

Only 22 studies met quality and inclusion criteria, and most had small sample sizes, limiting generalisability. The review included only English-language, peer-reviewed literature, excluding grey literature, books, dissertations and studies from non-English-speaking countries. Most studies were from the United States, so findings may not transfer to other policy and funding contexts. Segregated university models were excluded, so the review cannot compare inclusive with non-inclusive programme outcomes. Longitudinal data were limited, so longer-term effects on employment, relationships and well-being are not known. Only one included study compared programme models, making it difficult to recommend which model of inclusion works best.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The work was funded by the National Disability Research Partnership and the Department of Social Services, Australian Government.

Do not read the positive outcomes as proof that inclusive university programmes cause these gains. The review synthesised 22 heterogeneous studies, most with small samples, and the authors note that limited longitudinal data and a lack of comparative studies mean longer-term effects and the relative value of different programme models remain unclear.