ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Co-analysis in virtual spaces: engaging children with disabilities, families, and the community as research partners in low-resource settings.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional disability studies often overlook children with disabilities, their families, and communities from analytical processes, particularly in low-resource settings. This methodological paper describes co-analysis conducted across virtual spaces with marginalized stakeholders as partners in data interpretation, examining whether participatory approaches can address epistemic injustices while navigating resource constraints in urban Philippine communities.
methodsChildren were engaged in data-gathering through a mosaic approach (storytelling, drawing, photo elicitation, interview) across 24 individual virtual sessions, while adults participated in eight (8) online focus groups. We employed a four-pronged co-analysis approach with 49 participants from a community-based rehabilitation (CBR) program for urban low-resource communities: eight (8) children with disabilities aged 9-16 years, 18 parents, nine (9) CBR workers, and 14 local organization members. The co-analysis approach comprised: (1) participant-directed methodology, (2) grassroots epistemology, (3) iterative partnership building, and (4) collective reflexivity addressing researcher positionality.
resultsCo-analysis revealed four insights. First, layered accessibility is essential for inclusion, combining universal design with disability-specific scaffolding. Second, co-analysis itself creates hierarchies as analytical frameworks privilege certain cognitive and communication abilities despite accessibility adaptations. We argue for epistemic pluralism, recognizing different ways of analytical contribution. Third, virtual spaces generated different hierarchies rather than eliminating them. Fourth, structural inequities persisted despite methodological innovation, as digital access, economic precarity, and cognitive demands reproduced exclusions our methodology aimed to dismantle.
conclusionsAchieving epistemic justice through co-analysis requires institutional resources, researcher humility that values diverse analytical contributions, and acknowledgment that participatory methods may expand access but cannot overcome structural inequalities without concurrent shifts in power and resources.
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.