ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
The co-development and pilot evaluation of the Siblings Training, Empowerment, and Advocacy Kit (Siblings TEAKit) to support youth and young adult siblings of individuals with a disability: A participatory action research qualitative study protocol.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSiblings can have multiple roles in the lives of each other over time, including the roles of friend, role model, and caregiver at different time points. These roles may be different for siblings of youth with disabilities, and yet, there are limited resources to support siblings in the health, rehabilitation, and education systems. This protocol outlines a study for which the primary aim is to develop and evaluate a toolkit to support youth and young adult siblings to initiate conversations about their roles and responsibilities with their sibling(s) with a disability and family. The secondary aim of the study is to test a framework for and evaluate the process of partnered research with siblings and other family members.
methodsThis qualitative descriptive study will adopt a participatory approach where a Sibling Youth Advisory Council (SibYAC) of young adult siblings of individuals with a disability and/or chronic health condition will be engaged as research partners. The long standing partnership with the SibYAC and our team has informed the need to conduct this study. This study will be conducted in two stages to address our primary aim. First, a co-design workshop will be held with siblings (ages 14 to 25 years old) to develop the content and format of the toolkit. Second, focus groups will be conducted with siblings, parents, and healthcare professionals to provide feedback on the toolkit prototypes. Data will be analyzed using directed content analysis with implementation science frameworks as a guide. Specifically, the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model will be used to identify toolkit elements focused on supporting siblings, and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will provide considerations about settings for where the toolkit could be implemented in the future. The secondary aim is addressed where our partnership with the SibYAC will be evaluated through formative discussions and the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. DISCUSSION: This study protocol advances the methods and rigour in participatory research with young people, including siblings. This study is the first step towards the development of a toolkit to support siblings of persons with disabilities to foster dialogue between families, health and education professionals about their roles. Clear expectations about family roles can promote positive health and wellbeing for siblings and the whole family.
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.