ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Ethical reflections on the use of the category "children with disabilities" in quantitative research.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative research plays a vital role in informing public health policies concerning children with disabilities. However, the categorisation of children as 'disabled' in statistical analyses raises complex ethical questions. This perspective article offers a conceptual and normative reflection on the ethical implications of such categorisation, drawing on the frameworks of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. It argues that while categorisation may be necessary for policy development and resource allocation, it can also perpetuate stigma, discrimination, and social exclusion-particularly when based on inconsistent definitions or overly broad categories. The article contrasts medical and social models of disability and highlights how these frameworks influence who is included within the category "children with disabilities" in research. It further explores how ethical theories can guide researchers in navigating the tension between the need for statistical clarity and the imperative to respect individual dignity and diversity. Special attention is given to intersectionality and to the importance of nuanced, inclusive approaches to data collection. The analysis concludes that categorisation can be ethically justified if conducted with care, transparency, and respect for the lived experiences of children with disabilities. Ethical reflection should be an ongoing process throughout the research lifecycle, not a one-time consideration. This article contributes to the broader discourse on responsible research practices in quantitative studies and calls for ethically grounded methodologies that promote inclusion and equity.
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.