ArticleOccupational therapy international2026
Expert Consensus on Components of an Evidence-Based Framework to Facilitate Self-Employment for Persons With Disabilities: A Delphi Study.
Article in Occupational therapy international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Expert Consensus on Components of an Evidence-Based Framework to Facilitate Self-Employment for Persons With Disabilities: A Delphi Study.Occupational therapy international · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIn light of the global unemployment crisis, there is a need for research on nonconventional work, including self-employment, an alternative placement option for persons with disabilities.
objectiveThe objective of the study is to establish consensus on the components of an evidence-based framework to facilitate self-employment for persons with disabilities.
methodsEnd users, service providers and policy actors participated in this Delphi study. Relevant data was collected online and analysed thematically, descriptively and using frequencies.
resultsThe response rates were n = 19/21 (91%) in Round 1, n = 16/19 (84%) in Round 2 and n = 15/16 (94%) in Round 3. The main findings of Round 1, through an open-ended question, were (i) an ideal tool, considerations and interventions related to entrepreneurial skills for persons with disabilities and (ii) expected roles and capacities of persons with disabilities. Through the 5-point Likert scale evaluations in Round 2, the participants identified critical components of the framework, including (i) key features, (ii) legislation that informs disability rights, (iii) involved key role players, (iv) characteristics, roles and duties of persons with disabilities and (v) the ideal tool's facilitation steps. In the final round, the participants agreed on the content of the framework's user's guide document to include the following: (i) purpose of the tool, (ii) background of the tool, (iii) how to use the tool and (iv) tool supporting resources.
conclusionConsensus on the components of a framework was achieved; experts regarded the framework as being nonprescriptive, prioritising practicality, accessibility and sustainability within and beyond the South African context. Participants proposed measures like a user's guide to support framework operationalisation.
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.