ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Navigating care together: developing a collaborative checklist to improve care for children with intellectual disabilities.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has been increasingly integrated into research, its application in intellectual disability contexts can sometimes be overlooked due to perceived barriers. This study describes the collaborative development of The Behaviour Checklist, a tool designed to help parents/carers and clinicians identify and monitor causes of behaviours that challenge in children with moderate-profound intellectual disability.
methodsThe study utilised consultation, collaboration, and user-controlled research, as outlined by INVOLVE. A Checklist Development Group of parents/carers, clinicians, and researchers reviewed and revised Version 1 of the checklist during monthly meetings over eight months. Feedback from two additional focus groups comprising parents/carers and clinicians was incorporated to refine usability, content, and relevance. The process followed the GRIPP2-SF reporting framework to ensure quality and consistency.
resultsPPI contributed significantly to the checklist development by refining its purpose, functionality, item clarity, and visual format. For example, checklist items were revised to better align with real-world experiences, and guidance notes were simplified for lay comprehension. Feedback emphasised the checklist's role as an aide memoire for identifying behavioural patterns and structuring clinical conversations. Parents/carers also highlighted its potential for monitoring changes, and supporting formal applications, while clinicians noted its utility in clinical decision-making. The finalised checklist was prepared for a pilot study, to assess its feasibility and acceptability.
conclusionsThe involvement of parents/carers and clinicians positively influenced the checklist's design, fostering a resource that balances scientific validity with practical relevance for service users and providers. PPI also strengthened relationships between stakeholders, paving the way for future collaboration. The checklist is ready for feasibility and acceptability testing and has the potential to improve outcomes for children with intellectual disabilities and their families by facilitating better understanding and management of behaviours that challenge.
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.