Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39935076›Full record

ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2025

A Scoping Review of the Ways Gatekeepers May Hinder or Promote Opportunities for People With Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities to Learn About Research Participation.

Madison Brodeur, Ariel Schwartz, Katherine McDonald

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Madison BrodeurOccupational Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ariel SchwartzInstitute on Disability, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4051-8870
Katherine McDonaldPublic Health, Falk College, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute EASC-IDD-00301Undergraduate Research and Creative Engagement at Syracuse University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities are disproportionately excluded from participation in research, consequently increasing disparities experienced by this group. Gatekeepers, individuals who control access to research participation opportunities, may either support or pose a barrier to inclusion in research. We sought to understand how gatekeepers serve as supports and barriers to the participation of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in research and the factors that may drive their actions. We also sought to identify approaches to interacting with gatekeepers that promoted the sharing of research participation opportunities.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of manuscripts published between January 2009 and September 2024 describing gatekeeping during recruitment for adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in social/behavioural research. We conducted content analysis of 22 manuscripts to identify 'gate opening' actions (actions that support research participation) and 'gate closing' actions (actions that pose a barrier to research participation) at the point of recruitment. We also identified approaches researchers took when interacting with gatekeepers to promote gate opening actions.

resultsGatekeepers' attitudes (e.g., valuing research) and knowledge about prospective participants were associated with gate opening actions. Gatekeepers' attitudes of mistrust of researchers and/or research, deprioritisation of research and presumed incapacity of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to consent to, participate in and/or benefit from research participation were associated with gate closing actions. Gatekeepers' lack of information (e.g., about research and prospective participants) was also associated with gate closing actions. Restrictive organisational policies and gatekeepers' lack of resources (e.g., time) were also associated with gate closing actions. Approaches for interacting with gatekeepers that may foster gate opening actions included: addressing gatekeeper concerns, educating gatekeepers about the benefits of research participation and developing relationships with gatekeepers.

conclusionWe identified several malleable factors that may drive gate opening and gate closing actions. Enhanced collaboration between researchers and gatekeepers may foster greater opportunities for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to learn about research opportunities.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDevelopmental DisabilitiesIntellectual DisabilityPatient SelectionAdultHumansdevelopmental disabilitygatekeepingintellectual disabilityrecruitmentresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID39935076
PMCPMC11966353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.