本体论和认识论塑造了我们对包容的理解:残疾与包容研究文献综述

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Claire Spivakovsky, Keith McVilly, Ms Tessa-May Zirnsak, Susan Ainsworth, Lorraine Graham, Matthew Harrison, Victor Sojo, Lindsey Gale, Anna Genat
{"title":"本体论和认识论塑造了我们对包容的理解:残疾与包容研究文献综述","authors":"Claire Spivakovsky,&nbsp;Keith McVilly,&nbsp;Ms Tessa-May Zirnsak,&nbsp;Susan Ainsworth,&nbsp;Lorraine Graham,&nbsp;Matthew Harrison,&nbsp;Victor Sojo,&nbsp;Lindsey Gale,&nbsp;Anna Genat","doi":"10.1111/jppi.12461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho-social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high-income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho-social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":47236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities","volume":"20 3","pages":"273-288"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jppi.12461","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion\",\"authors\":\"Claire Spivakovsky,&nbsp;Keith McVilly,&nbsp;Ms Tessa-May Zirnsak,&nbsp;Susan Ainsworth,&nbsp;Lorraine Graham,&nbsp;Matthew Harrison,&nbsp;Victor Sojo,&nbsp;Lindsey Gale,&nbsp;Anna Genat\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jppi.12461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho-social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high-income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho-social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"273-288\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jppi.12461\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jppi.12461\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jppi.12461","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

残疾人在住宿和社区环境中继续面临实质性和有意义的融入障碍。本系统综述的目的是研究关于住宿和社区环境中残疾人的“包容”、“整合”、“排斥”和“隔离”的文献特征。这些文献很重要,因为它为政策和实践提供了证据基础。我们确定了457篇文章,主要与智力残疾和心理社会残疾人士的经历有关。我们发现:(1)自2006年以来,有关残疾人士在住宿和社区生活环境中的“包容”、“融合”、“排斥”和“隔离”的出版物数量每年都在增加;(2)西方高收入国家在科研产出中的比例过高;(3)大多数研究是在健康科学领域进行的;(4)只有30%的文献直接涉及残疾人;(5)在我们审查的出版物中,不到50%(457篇手稿中的223篇)将纳入、整合、排斥和隔离作为主要关注点;(6)“包容”、“融合”、“排斥”和“隔离”主要用于特定人群——心理社会残疾和智力残疾;(7)对不同社区残疾人经历的关注存在很大差异;(8)目前明显缺乏关于残疾人与父母和/或兄弟姐妹同住的经历和结果的学术文献。这些发现对研究议程、政策和实践都具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion

The ontology and epistemology shaping our understanding of inclusion: A critical review of the research literature on disability and inclusion

People with disability continue to face barriers to substantive and meaningful inclusion in accommodation and community settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the characteristics of the literature on ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’, and ‘segregation’ for people with disability in accommodation and community settings. This literature is important because it provides the evidence base that informs policy and practice. We identified 457 articles that primarily related to the experiences of people with intellectual disability and psycho-social disability. We found: (1) the volume of publications relating to the ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ of people with disability in accommodation and community living settings has increased each year since 2006; (2) high-income western countries were overrepresented in research outputs; (3) most research has been undertaken in the health sciences; (4) only 30% of literature directly engaged with people with disability; (5) less than 50% of the publications we reviewed (223 out of 457 manuscripts) identified inclusion, integration, exclusion and segregation as their primary focus; (6) ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘segregation’ were predominantly used in the context of specific populations—psycho-social disability and intellectual disability; (7) there is great variation in the attention paid to the experiences of different communities of people with disability; and (8) the notable absence of current scholarly literature on the experiences and outcomes of people with disability living at home with parents and/or siblings. Each of these findings have important implications for the research agenda, policy, and practice.

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
4.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
38
×
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