Housing and future planning have been key areas of interest in intellectual and development disabilities research for a number of decades. However, the voices of adults with intellectual disabilities are underrepresented in this area of research. Furthermore, the use of inclusive research methods remains limited in the literature. This study sought to pilot the use of inclusive research approaches to investigate the viability of these methods and to begin to build an evidence base of inclusive research in this area of work. Inclusive data analysis and co-authorship approaches were used on a small qualitative dataset from a larger study investigating future planning and transitions out of the family home by adults with intellectual disabilities and their families in Australia. Three semi-structured interviews with adults with intellectual disabilities and family members regarding their housing preferences and planning were analysed using an inclusive data analysis approach following the principles of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. These were then further analysed using a plain language version of the housing pathways framework. The results of the pilot study will be used to inform the inclusive research methods used for the remainder of the project dataset. Overall, the use of inclusive methods to pilot a conceptual model to better understand qualitative data was found to be feasible. Small adjustments to the process and accessibility to better support engagement with the research process are recommended. Lastly, greater investigation into co-authorship approaches and options is suggested as a fruitful avenue of inquiry for future research.

Dementia is a global health issue. For adults with intellectual disabilities living with dementia, diagnosis and support pose unique challenges. For those who reside in shared disability supported accommodation (group homes), there are additional considerations regarding support and ageing in place. Semi-structured interviews with twelve staff from three disability service providers in Australia were conducted to explore the experiences of disability service providers supporting adults with intellectual disabilities and dementia. The study found that delays in diagnosis hampered timely and effective interventions and, consequently, the care and support received by those adults with intellectual disabilities living with dementia. This impacted organisations’ ability to adequately staff accommodation and remunerate disability support workers. This had implications for those in group homes, where the needs of other residents were affected. Lastly, while ageing in place was considered desirable, none of the provider organisations had guidelines for remaining in the home. This study highlights the need for further investigation into this growing population, including those living in the community.

This study examines informal supporters' experiences and views of NDIS behaviour support practitioners, including engagement, information needed to support selection, and perceptions of practitioners' knowledge, skill, and practice. It reports data from a cross‐sectional online survey of 123 informal support providers of participants receiving NDIS behaviour support services, capturing quantitative ratings (descriptive statistics) and qualitative insights (thematic analysis). Most supporters (64%) understood practitioner roles but reported insufficient information and support in engaging suitable practitioners, with access barriers for regional participants. Confidence in practitioner skills varied greatly: moderate overall (32%), but low skills in participant engagement (42%), plans reflecting participant values (42%), implementation support (42%), and fade out planning for restrictive practices (52%). Reported strengths included collaboration and communication skills, but gaps revealed a lack of skills in stakeholder engagement, disability‐specific knowledge, compliance‐focus over outcomes, and limited hands‐on support. Supporters prioritised relevant qualifications plus lived experience and disability‐specific knowledge. Findings suggest variability in supporters' confidence in practitioners' knowledge, skills and practice, raising questions about what to prioritise when selecting a practitioner. Systemic reforms are needed to support more consistent and rights‐based behaviour support provision, including transparency in practitioner information, increased involvement of participants and informal supporters, and workforce capabilities emphasising disability expertise.