MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004363668 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1717649

Strategies used to engage hard-to-reach populations in childhood disability research: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3004363668 on OpenAlexafffund
Miriam González, Michelle Phoenix, Shikha Saxena, Roberta Cardoso, Michelle Canac‐Marquis, Lindsay Hales, Connie Putterman, Keiko Shikako‐Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsAutism CanadaHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)EmpowermentGrey literatureIndigenousEthnic groupPsychologyCommunity engagementMedicineMEDLINESocial psychologyPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We completed a scoping review to: (1) identify strategies that have been used to engage hard-to-reach populations in childhood disability research, and (2) synthesize information as to whether and how these strategies were evaluated. METHODS: Systematic search of six electronic databases and grey literature to identify articles published in the last 10 years. Studies published in English, French, and Spanish reporting on strategies used to engage hard-to-reach populations in childhood disability research were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of 106 articles selected for full text review, 16 were included. Engagement was more common in earlier stages of research. The populations included in studies were children with disabilities and their parents. Engagement strategies were reported but rarely evaluated. Anecdotal outcomes of engagement were reported in 14/16 studies and included positive outcomes for the children and parents such as empowerment. The challenges with engagement included the increased time needed to engage children with disabilities or their parents. CONCLUSIONS: Our results can guide others who wish to engage a diverse group of children with disabilities and their parents in research. Research on how to engage other hard-to-reach populations within the childhood disability umbrella and evaluation of engagement strategies and outcomes is needed.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION• Service providers should be concerned when the research informing their practices does not include families that represent their clients (e.g., families who are low income, Indigenous, ethnic minority, or LGBTQI parents of children with disabilities).• Strategies used to include children with disabilities in research, such as offering varied response methods that include story telling or photography, may also be used to promote participation in clinical services.• Service providers and teachers may have a role in facilitating the recruitment of 'hard-to-reach' families in research and advising researchers on methods to create a comfortable environment with accessible means of data collection for children with disabilities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.420
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207