ArticlePloS one2025
Understanding social inclusion: A directed content analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inclusion through technology: findings from a public engagement approach.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Editorial: Aging: challenges and opportunities for inclusion and active participation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial inclusion can be defined as a process that enhances opportunities for social participation, strengthens social bonds, and ensures equitable access to opportunities and decision-making. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of society and the active roles individuals play in upholding shared values and responsibilities. This study aimed to explore factors contributing to social inclusion from the perspective of families in Kingston, Ontario who self-identified as having a history of adversity and as being resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsParticipants consisted of a maximum variation sample of families who demonstrated family level resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus groups and semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to allow participants to explore what helped or hindered their family resilience during and beyond the pandemic. Using directed content analysis, line-by-line coding of interview transcripts was conducted to explore the fit between data and an existing social inclusion framework.
resultsThe majority of data fit meaningfully into the dimensions established in the social inclusion framework:(1) Quality Education; (2) Innovation & Technology; (3) Governmental Policies & Laws; (4) Transportation & Infrastructure; (5) Employment & Organizations; (6) Poverty & Economy; (7) Medical & Health; and (8) Community & Culture. However, we noted that some dimensions could be both sources of and barriers to social inclusion. Additionally, our study identified specific elements not discussed in the original inclusion framework, including informal education, public gathering spaces, nature, the social dimensions of poverty, and mental health care.
conclusionsParticipants perceived social inclusion as a facilitator of resilience. Interventions targeting the many dimensions of social inclusion must be implemented to drive positive community transformation.
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.