ArticlePloS one2025
Experienced inclusion and recognition amongst people with spinal cord injury: A comparative study in Norway, The Netherlands, and Australia.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this article is to study inclusion and recognition experienced amongst people with a Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in Norway, The Netherlands, and Australia. This is approached both from the perspectives of an interest in the impact of mobility limitations versus social attitudes, and from a consideration of differences between societies.
methodsThe data derive from the core questionnaire of International Spinal Cord Injury Community Survey with extended national modules on the attitudes and values of respondents from Norway, The Netherlands, and Australia. The data gathered in 2017-18 include 2,450 participants aged 18 years or older. The data are analysed and presented with descriptive statistics and OLS regression analyses. In order to explore our main questions, we run regression controlling for country effects in addition exploring within country effects.
resultsMobility limitations are a substantially weaker predictor of self-perceived inclusion and recognition than experiences of negative attitudes towards disabled people. Stereotypical attitudes and norms in society are shown to have various impacts on inclusion in the three countries. The Norwegian respondents report overall better results on inclusion and recognition than respondents in Australia and The Netherlands, illustrating the importance of national contexts.
conclusionsChallenges associated with inclusion, recognition, and respect after SCI need to be defined in a language broader than mobility limitations and stereotypical attitudes towards people with an SCI. The main road to both inclusion and recognition in society is primarily linked to job and educational status, in addition to family and friends. The results are of particular interest as measures to support reintegration into society, including a strengthening of labour market integration programs.
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.