ArticleJournal of family violence2023
Prioritising Children and Young People with Disability in Research About Domestic and Family Violence: Methodological, Ethical and Pragmatic Reflections.
Article in Journal of family violence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sailing Into Uncharted Territory: Victim Survivors' Perspectives on Some of the Tensions of Engagement as Partners in Co-Design Research.Violence against women · 2026Article
- Health service access and delivery for people living with rare disorders: a scoping review.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Collaborating With Young People: Identifying the Barriers and Facilitators in Co-Designed Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Codesign is the zeitgeist of our time, but what do we mean by this? A scoping review of the concept of codesign in collaborative research with young people.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The perspectives of children and young people with disability who experience domestic and family violence are under-researched, impeding the development of approaches that meet their needs. Knowledge gaps stem from the layered discursive positioning of disability, childhood/youth, or domestic and family violence in addition to the methodological, ethical and pragmatic complexity of research needed to understand their priorities and be attuned to their lived experience. This article explores methodological, ethical and practical challenges to centring their voices in research about domestic and family violence. Method: A conceptual framework of feminist disability theory and intersectionality informed our co-designed research, across three phases: (1) quantitative large-scale data linkage and case file analysis; (2) qualitative research with children and young people, their families and service providers and (3) stakeholder engagement workshops. Results: We reflect on how our research was able to prioritise the contextual agency of children and young people with disability, ways it could not, and other constraints. Conclusion: Children and young people with disability experiencing domestic and family violence hold an expert and unique vantage point on what happens to them. Amplifying their priorities for directing policy and organisational change requires more of researchers in terms of methods, but also more flexibility in how projects are funded to enable creativity and innovation. We call for collective attention to frameworks for supported decision-making and child ethics to progress inclusive research which recognises the importance of participation for children and young people with disability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.