将智障成年人纳入健康研究——挑战、障碍和机遇:英国利益相关者的混合方法研究。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
R. Bishop, R. Laugharne, N. Shaw, A. M. Russell, D. Goodley, S. Banerjee, E. Clack, SpeakUp, CHAMPS, R. Shankar
{"title":"将智障成年人纳入健康研究——挑战、障碍和机遇:英国利益相关者的混合方法研究。","authors":"R. Bishop,&nbsp;R. Laugharne,&nbsp;N. Shaw,&nbsp;A. M. Russell,&nbsp;D. Goodley,&nbsp;S. Banerjee,&nbsp;E. Clack,&nbsp;SpeakUp,&nbsp;CHAMPS,&nbsp;R. Shankar","doi":"10.1111/jir.13097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The study aims to understand system barriers to research participation for people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A mixed-methods approach examined the inclusivity of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in a random sample of National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) studies conducted in 2019–2020. An online questionnaire (stage 1) was sent to the selected studies lead investigators. An expert by experience panel of 25 people with intellectual disabilities (IDs, stage 2), discussed the stage 1 feedback. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data was conducted.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 180 studies reviewed, 131 studies (78%) excluded people with IDs. Of these, 45 (34.3%) study researchers provided feedback. Seven (20%) of the 34 studies which included people with IDs gave feedback. Of all respondents over half felt their study had some relevance to people with IDs. A minority (7.6%) stated their study had no relevance. For a quarter of respondents (23.5%), resource issues were a challenge. Qualitative analysis of both stages produced four overarching themes of Research design and delivery, Informed consent, Resource allocation, and Knowledge and skills.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Health research continues to exclude people with IDs. Researchers and experts by experience identified non-accessible research design, lack of confidence with capacity and consent processes, limited resources such as time and a need for training as barriers. Ethics committees appear reluctant to include people with cognitive deficits to ‘protect’ them. People with IDs want to be included in research, not only as participants but also through coproduction.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":"68 2","pages":"140-149"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jir.13097","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The inclusion of adults with intellectual disabilities in health research – challenges, barriers and opportunities: a mixed-method study among stakeholders in England\",\"authors\":\"R. Bishop,&nbsp;R. Laugharne,&nbsp;N. Shaw,&nbsp;A. M. Russell,&nbsp;D. Goodley,&nbsp;S. Banerjee,&nbsp;E. Clack,&nbsp;SpeakUp,&nbsp;CHAMPS,&nbsp;R. Shankar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jir.13097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study aims to understand system barriers to research participation for people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A mixed-methods approach examined the inclusivity of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in a random sample of National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) studies conducted in 2019–2020. An online questionnaire (stage 1) was sent to the selected studies lead investigators. An expert by experience panel of 25 people with intellectual disabilities (IDs, stage 2), discussed the stage 1 feedback. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data was conducted.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of 180 studies reviewed, 131 studies (78%) excluded people with IDs. Of these, 45 (34.3%) study researchers provided feedback. Seven (20%) of the 34 studies which included people with IDs gave feedback. Of all respondents over half felt their study had some relevance to people with IDs. A minority (7.6%) stated their study had no relevance. For a quarter of respondents (23.5%), resource issues were a challenge. Qualitative analysis of both stages produced four overarching themes of Research design and delivery, Informed consent, Resource allocation, and Knowledge and skills.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Health research continues to exclude people with IDs. Researchers and experts by experience identified non-accessible research design, lack of confidence with capacity and consent processes, limited resources such as time and a need for training as barriers. Ethics committees appear reluctant to include people with cognitive deficits to ‘protect’ them. People with IDs want to be included in research, not only as participants but also through coproduction.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"volume\":\"68 2\",\"pages\":\"140-149\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jir.13097\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.13097\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.13097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在了解智障人士参与研究的制度障碍。方法:在2019-2020年进行的国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)研究的随机样本中,采用混合方法检查了智障人士的包容性。向选定的研究负责人发送了一份在线问卷(第1阶段)。由25名智障人士(ID,第2阶段)组成的经验小组的专家讨论了第1阶段的反馈。对定量数据进行了描述性统计,对定性数据进行了专题分析。结果:在回顾的180项研究中,131项研究(78%)排除了ID患者。其中,45名(34.3%)研究人员提供了反馈。34项研究中有7项(20%)对有身份证的人进行了反馈。在所有受访者中,超过一半的人认为他们的研究与有身份证的人有一定的相关性。少数人(7.6%)表示他们的研究与此无关。四分之一的受访者(23.5%)认为,资源问题是一个挑战。对这两个阶段的定性分析产生了四个总体主题,即研究设计和实施、知情同意、资源分配以及知识和技能。结论:健康研究继续排除有身份证的人。根据经验,研究人员和专家认为,无法获得的研究设计、对能力和同意程序缺乏信心、时间等资源有限以及需要培训是障碍。伦理委员会似乎不愿意将有认知缺陷的人包括在内,以“保护”他们。有身份证的人希望参与研究,不仅作为参与者,而且通过合作生产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The inclusion of adults with intellectual disabilities in health research – challenges, barriers and opportunities: a mixed-method study among stakeholders in England

Background

The study aims to understand system barriers to research participation for people with intellectual disabilities.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach examined the inclusivity of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in a random sample of National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) studies conducted in 2019–2020. An online questionnaire (stage 1) was sent to the selected studies lead investigators. An expert by experience panel of 25 people with intellectual disabilities (IDs, stage 2), discussed the stage 1 feedback. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data was conducted.

Results

Of 180 studies reviewed, 131 studies (78%) excluded people with IDs. Of these, 45 (34.3%) study researchers provided feedback. Seven (20%) of the 34 studies which included people with IDs gave feedback. Of all respondents over half felt their study had some relevance to people with IDs. A minority (7.6%) stated their study had no relevance. For a quarter of respondents (23.5%), resource issues were a challenge. Qualitative analysis of both stages produced four overarching themes of Research design and delivery, Informed consent, Resource allocation, and Knowledge and skills.

Conclusion

Health research continues to exclude people with IDs. Researchers and experts by experience identified non-accessible research design, lack of confidence with capacity and consent processes, limited resources such as time and a need for training as barriers. Ethics committees appear reluctant to include people with cognitive deficits to ‘protect’ them. People with IDs want to be included in research, not only as participants but also through coproduction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信