ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
Reflections on an Evidence Review Process to Inform the Co-Design of a Toolkit for Supporting End-of-Life Care Planning With People With Intellectual Disabilities.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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.
- Getting It Out There: Reflections on the Process and Impact of Public Engagement Activities in a Study on End-of-Life Care Planning With People With Intellectual Disabilities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Co-Designing a Toolkit of Approaches and Resources for End-of-Life Care Planning With People With Intellectual Disabilities Within Adult Social Care Settings: A Multi-Phase Study.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is growing recognition that healthcare inequalities faced by people with intellectual disabilities extend to their experiences at the end of life, resulting in calls for more inclusive research to help address these inequities. Our study aimed to address this through the co-design of a toolkit for supporting end-of-life care planning with people with intellectual disabilities. To inform the co-design process, we undertook an evidence review to identify existing tools, resources and approaches that were already being used in practice.
methodsOur evidence review comprised three components: (i) a rapid scoping review of the academic literature, (ii) a desk-based search of the grey literature and (iii) an online survey to capture unpublished resources that were distributed to services, professionals, third-sector organisations and family members. A longlist of existing materials was appraised using an adapted version of the AGREE II instrument, resulting in a shortlist that was shared with the co-design team.
resultsThe evidence review played a critical role in the co-design of a new toolkit of end-of-life care resources for people with intellectual disabilities. However, AGREE II proved to be limited for our purposes.
conclusionsThe survey was particularly useful in helping us identify resources, tools and approaches in current use. We identified evidence review processes that served to support co-design team activities and elements that were more problematic. We argue that evidence review practices might be enhanced to better aid co-design activities in health and care research, particularly for studies involving people with intellectual disabilities. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This article reflects on an evidence review that was conducted as part of The Victoria and Stuart Project. People with intellectual disabilities were deeply involved at every stage of project design, delivery and dissemination. The project employed people with intellectual disabilities as members of the core research team. People with intellectual disabilities and family carers were members of the project co-design team and the project Advisory Group. The evidence review process itself was led by academic members of the research team with contributions from colleagues with intellectual disabilities via the Advisory Group and core research team. The findings from the evidence review were used by the co-design team to inform the development of an end-of-life care planning toolkit for people with intellectual disabilities.
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.