ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Facilitating choice when engaging young people with disabilities: reflections from co-researcher training.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 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.
- Engaging youth in systems thinking for active recreation: piloting a Collective Intelligence approach.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Co-Producing a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) With and for People With Intellectual Disability.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA collaborative approach is critical in inclusive research and should incorporate taking time to build relationships with co-researchers based on trust and shared understanding. Involvement can often be seen as tokenistic and in order to avoid this, it is important to provide opportunities for people to exercise choice throughout the research process. MAIN BODY: The current paper outlines learnings from a co-researcher training process for young people with disabilities to identify the ways in which meaningful choice can be facilitated with this group. While conducting training of co-researchers in topics such as research methods, we were continuously led by the group with regards to the directions that the sessions took and promoted problem solving with the group to accommodate the unique needs of all members. The overall aim of a wider project was to develop research capacity in a group of young people with disabilities through co-researcher training and this paper will report on learnings from this work with regards to how we sought to provide opportunities for the co-researchers to exercise choice within research projects. Feedback from the group of young people highlighted the variety of needs and expectations that must be accommodated in such a process and therefore, allowing them to dictate the extent and manner of their engagement is key. Young people with disabilities are a heterogeneous group and therefore, some methodologies and ways of working required adaptation in order to facilitate meaningful choice and engagement for all.
conclusionProviding meaningful opportunities for demonstrating their choices, in relation to elements of research projects, is a critical component of facilitating a rights-based approach when conducting co-research and requires researchers to cede some level of control over the research process to co-researchers. This can be difficult to achieve in practice and researchers must continuously reflect on their own practice and be willing to change and adapt throughout the process.
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.