Person-centred planning

The retained identity is a foundational planning process centred on the person’s priorities and coordinated action. Evidence for a particular review meeting, transition package or local service change does not certify the whole family.

The evidence is presented as source-specific findings. This review does not award an overall certainty grade.

Some studies report desirable changes, and experience research identifies features that participants value. Those findings coexist with weak comparisons, incomplete receipt, unrepresentative samples, proxy reporting and uncertain follow-through. A rights-based reason to involve someone in decisions does not require an efficacy claim, and does not establish that a chosen planning format achieves its intended outcomes.

S01 — England special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) planning guidance

Identity/source role: January 2015 SEND Code, paragraphs 9.20–9.24; official normative guidance, not a trial. Population/setting: England’s SEND assessment and planning framework. Delivery/comparison: accessible, coordinated planning principles; no evaluated dose or comparator. Outcome/reporter: participation and coordination are expectations rather than measured effects. Fidelity/adaptation: the document itself does not measure implementation. Burden: coordinated assessment should minimise unnecessary demands; no burden reduction estimate is supplied. The current GOV.UK listing still links this Code; a 2026 consultation is a separate proposal, not evidence that these paragraphs have been replaced. This entry does not reproduce all statutory requirements.¹

S02 — Ratti and colleagues’ outcome synthesis

Identity/source role: original systematic review of person-centred planning (PCP) outcomes in intellectual disability; sixteen studies, excluding evaluations principally combining different interventions. Population/setting: mixed ages and settings; not a child-only evidence base. Delivery: varied formats, poorly standardized components. Comparison: no randomized trial within the eligibility criteria; heterogeneous nonrandomized or uncontrolled designs. Outcome/reporter: selective positive findings for choice and participation, inconsistent employment findings; no pooled family-wide effect adopted. Fidelity: insufficiently consistent description to identify a single active component. Burden: no usable pooled unwanted-effects assessment. Search ended in 2014. The review’s reported age envelope and S03’s primary age range do not align exactly; no reconciled age bound is inferred. S03 is included, so it is not independent evidence.²

S03 — Robertson and colleagues’ English longitudinal evaluation

Identity/source role: supported implementation across four sites, observational repeated measures. Population: 93 people, ages 16–86, mean 40.25; predominantly adult services. Delivery: about two years; 65 received a plan and 28 did not. Comparison: phased pre/post observations, not randomized receipt. Outcomes/reporters: key informants reported some participation/choice gains, absent change in employment and inclusive networks, and unfavourable health, risk and emotional/behavioural signals. Fidelity: receipt and local implementation were documented; no single common protocol established. Burden: historical cost accounting excluded transport, and is not a current price. Selection, concurrent influences and measurement limits prevent firm causal interpretation. Proposed explanations for negative findings are hypotheses, not grounds for removing them.³

S04 — Hagner and colleagues’ transition package

Identity/source role: randomized delayed exposure to family training, planning and implementation assistance. Population: 49 enrolled, 47 retained; 24 immediate/23 delayed, ages 16–19, all White, two female. Delivery: six family modules across three Saturdays, missed sessions made up; 3–5 planning meetings and 4–6 months of follow-up help. Comparison: delayed group retained normal service context and received a midyear call. Outcome/reporter: twelve-month student/parent scales; Table 2 has varying Ns, including 15/17 for self-determination. Fidelity: six meetings sampled by project codirectors, mean 22.4/24. Burden: some students could not complete measures despite adaptations. Analyses used separate within-group one-tailed tests, without a reported direct between-group change estimate. The finding “significant here, not there” does not demonstrate superiority. No measured employment outcome or isolated planning effect follows.⁴

S05 — Hagner and colleagues’ descriptive planning study

Identity/source role: implementation description, not a comparative efficacy trial. Population: 47 young people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the two-state school context. Delivery: 5–8 meetings, about six on average, generally 90–120 minutes; preparation and participation arrangements varied. Comparison: none. Outcome/reporter: facilitator records, meeting documentation and adaptations for 29/47; not a recipient-satisfaction sample. Fidelity: the report describes observations of six participants’ meetings and a subset of four independently rated meetings (two per state); all four exceeded its threshold, with a mean of 22.4. These are distinct reporting counts. Burden: the authors identify evening/weekend time and sustainability concerns. The 2012 and 2014 reports share authors, context and sample size, but their meeting-dose descriptions differ. Exact cohort overlap is not established here; they are conservatively not treated as independent outcome replications and the doses are not combined into one protocol.⁵

S06 — Young people’s experiences: Gregory and Atkinson

Identity/source role: qualitative synthesis, six studies including two theses. Population: five UK studies and one Australian; actual samples mainly ages 13–18, within review eligibility 13–25. Delivery: variable person-centred meetings. Comparison: no controlled pooled effect. Outcome/reporter: young-person accounts, with proxy/documentary material in some studies, concern influence, relationships, communication, anxiety, power and practical outcomes. Fidelity: idiosyncratic use makes alignment with the planning philosophy uncertain. Burden: apprehension, adult dominance and unavailable options can limit participation. Search covered 2010–2020; thematic interpretation does not estimate prevalence, prove a causal mechanism or certify that all participants experienced benefit. Overlap with S07 prevents adding study counts as separate confirmation.⁶

S07 — Educational practice: Gray and Woods

Identity/source role: education/SEMH-focused synthesis, ten studies: seven theses and three published papers. Population: nine UK studies and one Australian; child samples ages 5–17, plus professional participants; social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) sometimes inferred from descriptions. Delivery/comparison: varied methods and support contexts, mainly small exploratory studies rather than a common controlled intervention. Outcome/reporter: engagement and relationship accounts from different stakeholders; limited standardized/observable outcomes and follow-up. Fidelity: preparation, facilitation and action review vary. Burden: meeting anxiety, time and follow-through are relevant. Medium/high weights within this review concern fit to its review question and should not become an Atlas efficacy grade. Findings do not establish consistent gains in attendance, attainment or exclusion outcomes.⁷

S08 — Singapore Family Envisioning Meeting pilot

Identity/source role: 2026 qualitative implementation/adaptation research. Population: 17 adults at four selected special-education schools: four parents from three families, eight school personnel and five coordinators. No young-person interview sample. Delivery/comparison: a local pilot, not a controlled treatment-dose comparison. Outcome/reporter: adult accounts about language, cultural fit, roles and practical implementation; student outcomes were not tested. Fidelity/adaptation: proposed adaptations remain unevaluated. Burden: extended meetings, fatigue and concentrated coordination responsibilities. Purposive schools and self-selected families restrict transfer. The findings do not describe all Singaporean families or justify replacing student priorities with adult preferences.⁸

There is no single PCP dose, comparator or outcome across these records. Describe the actual process before applying any evidence: which decisions are open, what preparation occurred, how contribution was supported, what actions were agreed and what was delivered. A named facilitation method needs its own identity and version rather than inheriting evidence from every other planning format.

The randomized design in S04 deserves attention, but its analysis and component mixture limit the conclusion. S02’s absence of eligible randomized trials is not a contradiction: it used an intellectual-disability and component-specific scope, while S04 studied a multicomponent ASD transition package. Neither statement should be turned into “PCP has no trials” or “PCP is proven by a trial”.

Record process, delivery and everyday outcome separately. A person may influence a meeting but still encounter an unavailable service. A plan may be completed without the actions occurring. An action may be delivered without benefiting the chosen goal. Each is useful information; none should be silently substituted for the next.

Do not infer child self-report from a parent or staff measure. Support expression without hiding who supplied the account. Record inaccessible measures and missing responses; findings from respondents may be least applicable to people whose communication was not accommodated by the research.

• Identity and version: Name the component or programme, its edition or protocol where relevant, and the purpose being evaluated.
• Source role: Separate direct comparative evidence, descriptive implementation findings, guidance, theoretical support and firsthand experience.
• Population and setting: Retain the studied age, communication/access characteristics and setting. State when an intended application lies outside them.
• Intended and actual delivery: Record the planned components, frequency and duration (dose) separately from what was received, by whom, and with what support or interruptions.
• Comparison and other support: Name the actual comparison and concurrent changes. If there is no comparison group or condition (comparator) or it is unreported, say so rather than supply an assumed usual-care condition.
• Outcome and reporter: Record the outcome, time point and reporter. Keep the young person’s account separate from someone else’s judgement on their behalf (proxy report), and access or participation separate from task performance.
• Delivery as intended (fidelity (delivery of the approach as intended)) and adaptation: Record whether the core components were delivered and describe adaptations; distinguish an adapted application from the protocol tested.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Record time, effort, practical access, cost or workload where known, alongside refusal, fatigue, distress, restriction and other unwanted consequences. Unreported burden is not evidence of no burden.

The sixteen-study outcome review and six-study experience review are represented by S02 and S06; the education-specific review is S07. Their populations, designs and outcomes differ. Historical source-recovery records remain in the editorial archive.

Future work should reconcile the Hagner cohort/dose descriptions if a single programme profile is proposed; seek newer controlled outcome research matching the exact planning process; examine first-person experience among people with substantial communication support needs; and test whether agreed actions occurred. Source-specific uncertainty remains visible despite completion of this working article.

Specialist review should check the statistical interpretation, study-to-application boundaries and any statutory wording proposed for use. Recipient review should test whether the article makes influence, disagreement, support and adult follow-through understandable. Neither review has been commissioned or performed here. A separate AI editorial check is recorded independently.

Complete working article · Exact source assessment (internal editorial record)

1. 1.

   Department for Education / Department of Health (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Official England guidance; normative planning context.

   ↩1
2. 2.

   Ratti et al. (2016). The effectiveness of person-centred planning for people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Original systematic synthesis.

   ↩1
3. 3.

   Robertson et al. (2006). Longitudinal analysis of the impact and cost of person-centered planning for people with intellectual disabilities in England. Original longitudinal evaluation.

   ↩1
4. 4.

   Hagner et al. (2012). Outcomes of a family-centered transition process for students with autism spectrum disorders. Original randomized delayed-exposure package study.

   ↩1
5. 5.

   Hagner, Kurtz, May and Cloutier (2014). Person-centered planning for transition-aged youth with autism spectrum disorders. Original descriptive implementation study.

   ↩1
6. 6.

   Gregory and Atkinson (2024; online2023). Young people’s views and experiences of person-centred planning: a systematic literature review. Original qualitative synthesis of young-person experience.

   ↩1
7. 7.

   Gray and Woods (2022). Person-centred practices in education: a systematic review of research. Original education-specific synthesis.

   ↩1
8. 8.

   Lim and Dang (2026). Person-centered planning for transition-aged youth in Singapore: lessons in cultural adaptation and implementation. Original qualitative implementation research.

   ↩1