{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03669154228855721, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024875621890547263, 'mean_word_length': 5.935344827586207, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Identifying and Defining the Structures That Guide the Implementation of Participant Direction Programs and Support Program Participants

Participant direction (PD) programs offer the individual with a disability or his or her surrogate decision maker varying degrees of choice and control over the individual’s supports and services. We conducted a document analysis using grounded theory methods to identify the design elements of participant direction programs in long-term care. We analyzed 53 documents across multiple disabilities and funding sources. We identified and defined two major components of participant direction programs: policy and aid and assistance. The component of policy was represented by three structures that guide implementation of participant direction programs: (a) option to participant-direct, (b) participation stipulations, and (c) provider qualifications. The component of aid and assistance was represented by 11 structures that support program participants: (a) financial management services, (b) employer of record, (c) emergency back-up, (d) worker registry, (e) advice/counseling, (f) managerial assistance, (g) information dissemination products, (h) service quality monitoring, (i) service coordination, (j) participant training, and (k) provider training. Each structure was represented by one or more continua depicting the range of choice and control participants may have over the structure. The findings of this study have implications for improving the standardization of research on participant direction programs and the development of long-term care policy.