SynthesisJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
Studying the Experiences of Children With Moderate to Profound Intellectual Disabilities in Research: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Studying the Experiences of Children With Moderate to Profound Intellectual Disabilities in Research: A Systematic Review.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities are not usually invited to share their lived experiences through research. In addition to their difficulties in communication and cognitive functions, their exclusion is caused by the lack of suitable data collection instruments. Since the 1990s, more research has focused on the lived experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. The aim of this review is to examine how the experiences of children with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities have been studied.
methodA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Studies were searched from CINAHL, Education Collection, Sociology Collection, Social Science Database and PsycINFO in November 2023 and January 2025. Eligible studies had been published since the year 2000 in English or Finnish, included at least one child with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities and aimed to collect their experiences. General study details, population characteristics, and data collection details were extracted. The methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The analysis included a descriptive summary and inductive content analysis with intercoder reliability assessment.
resultsThe eligible studies (n = 41) used individual interviews, questionnaires, task-based approaches, observations and focus groups. Participants were mainly 12 years or older, had moderate intellectual disabilities, and could communicate with speech. The adaptations (i.e., any adjustments made for specific needs) comprised four top-level categories and 27 subcategories. The most commonly used adaptations and adaptations for different participant groups are presented.
conclusionsIndividual interviews and questionnaires with simple adaptations usually suit children with moderate intellectual disabilities who use speech to communicate. Individual interviews with multiple adaptations can be suitable for a wider group. Some task-based approaches and profound and long-lasting observations can be considered with children with non-symbolic communication and severe or profound 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.