Dataset Information

Reflections From Co-Researchers With Intellectual Disability: Benefits to Inclusion in a Research Study Team.

ABSTRACT: Participatory action research methodologies may empower and protect marginalized individuals; however, they remain underutilized. Limited studies have investigated the impact of participatory action research, specifically on individuals with intellectual disability (ID). This study examines (1) the perspectives of co-researchers with ID on their involvement in the research process and (2) the feasibility of their inclusion based on perspectives of research staff (academic faculty and graduate students without ID). Three co-researchers with ID were interviewed regarding their research participation. Thematic analysis of interviews identified four themes: (1) Shared Experience of Disability, (2) Teaching and Guidance, (3) Acquisition of Skills and Knowledge, and (4) Value of Participation. Research staff reviewed field notes and identified benefits and challenges to feasibility of including co-researchers with ID. Inclusion of co-researchers with ID was found to be both meaningful and feasible.

SUBMITTER: St John B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6348152 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reflections From Co-Researchers With Intellectual Disability: Benefits to Inclusion in a Research Study Team.

St John Brittany B Mihaila Iulia I Dorrance Katelyn K DaWalt Leann Smith LS Ausderau Karla K KK

Intellectual and developmental disabilities 20180801 4

Participatory action research methodologies may empower and protect marginalized individuals; however, they remain underutilized. Limited studies have investigated the impact of participatory action research, specifically on individuals with intellectual disability (ID). This study examines (1) the perspectives of co-researchers with ID on their involvement in the research process and (2) the feasibility of their inclusion based on perspectives of research staff (academic faculty and graduate st ...[more]

PMID: 30024848

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of this review is to answer the following question: Does assistive technology contribute to social inclusion for people with intellectual disability? Previous research on assistive technology has focused on socioeconomic impacts such as education, employment and access to healthcare by people with intellectual disability. There is a need to consolidate evidence on the interaction between intellectual disability, assistive technology, community living and social inclusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The review will consider studies from all settings: geographical, socioeconomic and care (institutional and community care), published in English. Studies reported in other languages with abstracts in English will be included if they can be translated using Google Translate, otherwise such studies will be included in the appendix. The review will include both qualitative and quantitative studies. The intervention in this review refers to the use of assistive technology to promote community participation or interpersonal relationships (social inclusion) for people with intellectual disability. The outcomes will be behavioural and social benefits of using assistive technology by people with intellectual disability. Enhanced interpersonal relationships and community participation by people with intellectual disability. Data analysis will be in two phases. The first phase will involve analysis of individual study designs separately. The second phase will be narrative/thematic synthesis of all study groups. ETHICS:The review will not create any ethical or safety concerns. DISSEMINATION:At least one peer-reviewed article in a leading journal such as the BMJ is planned. The findings will also be disseminated through a seminar session involving internal audience at Trinity College Dublin and within the Assistive Technologies for people with Intellectual Disability and Autism research programme. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017065447; Pre-results.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Project description:Maternal autoantibody-related ASD (MAR ASD) is a subtype of autism in which pathogenic maternal autoantibodies (IgG) cross the placenta, access the developing brain, and cause neurodevelopmental alterations and behaviors associated with autism in the exposed offspring. We previously reported maternal IgG response to eight proteins (CRMP1, CRMP2, GDA LDHA, LDHB, NSE, STIP1, and YBOX) and that reactivity to nine specific combinations of these proteins (MAR ASD patterns) was predictive of ASD risk. The aim of the current study was to validate the previously identified MAR ASD patterns (CRMP1 + GDA, CRMP1 + CRMP2, NSE + STIP1, CRMP2 + STIP1, LDHA + YBOX, LDHB + YBOX, GDA + YBOX, STIP1 + YBOX, and CRMP1 + STIP1) and their accuracy in predicting ASD risk in a prospective cohort employing maternal samples collected prior to parturition. We used prenatal plasma from mothers of autistic children with or without co-occurring intellectual disability (ASD = 540), intellectual disability without autism (ID = 184) and general population controls (GP = 420) collected by the Early Markers for Autism (EMA) study. We found reactivity to one or more of the nine previously identified MAR ASD patterns in 10% of the ASD group compared with 4% of the ID group and 1% of the GP controls (ASD vs GP: Odds Ratio (OR) = 7.81, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.32 to 22.43; ASD vs ID: OR = 2.77, 95% CI (1.19-7.47)) demonstrating that the MAR ASD patterns are strongly associated with the ASD group and could be used to assess ASD risk prior to symptom onset. The pattern most strongly associated with ASD was CRMP1 + CRMP2 and increased the odds for an ASD diagnosis 16-fold (3.32 to >999.99). In addition, we found that several of these specific MAR ASD patterns were strongly associated with ASD with intellectual disability (ASD + ID) and others associated with ASD without ID (ASD-no ID). Prenatal screening for these MAR patterns may lead to earlier identification of ASD and facilitate access to the appropriate early intervention services based on each child's needs.

Dataset Information

Reflections From Co-Researchers With Intellectual Disability: Benefits to Inclusion in a Research Study Team.

Publications

Reflections From Co-Researchers With Intellectual Disability: Benefits to Inclusion in a Research Study Team.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets