Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29292211›Full record

ArticleDisability and health journal2018

A quantitative study of attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability: Do stakeholders agree?

Katherine E McDonald, Nicole E Conroy, Robert S Olick, Project ETHICS Expert Panel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disability and health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Making Research Possible: Barriers and Solutions For Those With ASD and ID.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine E McDonaldSyracuse University, Public Health, Food Studies and Nutrition and the Burton Blatt Institute, 444 White Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA. Electronic address: kemcdona@syr.edu.
Nicole E ConroyThe University of Vermont, Leadership & Developmental Sciences, Mann Hall 208A, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Robert S OlickSUNY Upstate Medical University, Center for Bioethics and Humanities, 618 Irving Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
Project ETHICS Expert Panel
SUNY Upstate Medical University · USSyracuse University · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Stakeholder Views on Intellectual Disability Research EthicsR21HD075078 · NICHD · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI MCDONALD, KATHERINE ELIZABETH · 2013 to 2014
$415k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD075078
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAttitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability inform research policy and practice, impact interest in and support for research participation, and promote or discourage the generation of new knowledge to promote health among adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about these beliefs among the public and the scientific community. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We quantitatively studied attitudes among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. We predicted that adults with intellectual disability, and researchers would espouse views most consistent with disability rights, whereas IRB members, and to a lesser degree family, friends, and service providers, would espouse more protective views.

methodsWe surveyed five hundred and twelve members of the five participant stakeholder groups on their attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability.

resultsWe found broad support for research about people with intellectual disability, though slightly more tempered support for their direct participation therein. In general, IRB members and to some extent adults with intellectual disability endorsed direct participation less than others. We also found that adults with intellectual disability strongly believed in their consent capacity.

conclusionsResources should be directed toward health-related research with adults with intellectual disability, and interventions should be pursued to address ethical challenges and promote beliefs consistent with human rights.

Indexed as

AttitudeInformed ConsentIntellectual DisabilityMental CompetencyPersons with DisabilitiesResearch SubjectsStakeholder ParticipationAdultDiagnostic Self EvaluationEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchFamilyFemaleFriendsHealth PersonnelHuman RightsAttitudesIntellectual disabilityResearch ethicsResearch participation

Identifiers

PMID29292211
PMCPMC5999527
OpenAlexW2774543494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.