Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982910›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Understanding disability from a secondary data lens perspective: Evidence from consultations with members of the public with disabilities in the UK.

Eirini-Christina Saloniki, William Lammons, Sarah Markham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Eirini-Christina SalonikiDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5867-2702
William LammonsDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah MarkhamDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8755-5935

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disability is a multifaceted phenomenon, which complicates data collection about people with disabilities in surveys and censuses. A central issue is that the multiple underlying theoretical models about disability are seldomly made explicit yet strongly determine how data are collected and analysed by governments and organisations. It is crucial that such models together with other information about disability and its measurement are accessible and understood by everyone. This study comprised several UK survey searches for disability or disability-related questions and a series of consultations with members of the public with lived experience of disability to understand their perceptions of theoretical models of disability in survey questions. The findings highlighted the importance of continued involvement of people with lived experience in technical research activities. They further revealed that members of the public with lived experience can effectively become familiar with theoretical models of disability and how to analyse them in relation to survey questions subject to careful preparation, including practical examples.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesFemaleHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID39982910
PMCPMC11844830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.