ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2024
Access to health knowledge for health equality: a multi-phase review focused on disability-health.
Review in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supporting disability-inclusive knowledge translation and patient access to knowledge: A synthesis of select special education theories.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Review
- Systematic synthesis of intersectional best practices: knowledge translation for circumpolar indigenous disability.International journal of circumpolar health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe existing evidence base indicates increased interest in knowledge translation (KT), or, the dissemination of research to ensure uptake and impact. Given this definition, this study aimed to review existing scholarship on knowledge translation (KT) of health research to people living with disabilities (PLWD), and assess the current state of accessibility of health knowledge for people living with disabilities.
methodsGiven existing heterogeneity in literature as well as a number of varying definitions for both disability and knowledge translation, a reflexive, three-phase approach was utilized to improve methodological soundness. Phase I recognizes that existing review-style studies have been conducted on disability-KT. An existing systematic review on KT specific to the field of rehabilitation and physical medicine was analyzed to assess potential best practices towards inclusivity and accessibility for people living with disability. Phase II used the Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (KTDRR) database as an information-source with high-specificity to disability-health KT. Phase III sought to rapidly assess the current landscape of systematic reviews relevant to disability-health KT, with four systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria across Cochrane, Psycinfo, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE.
resultsThe current landscape of disability-health KT is primarily targeted at health professionals who serve PLWD. PLWD are included in KT, mostly as key informants, or as study participants in KT-studies designed as health interventions. Multiple systematic reviews on disability-health KT exist, presenting vastly different foci which prevent assessment of best practices.
conclusionsKT efforts are abundant and can be seen across health research related to disabilities, generating considerable literature and systematic reviews. With regards to meeting the public health objective of equalizing and enhancing access to health knowledge, future knowledge translation efforts intending to provide PLWD with up-to-date health research can be of significant value.
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.