Informed Consent or Assent Strategies for Research With Individuals With Deafblindness or Dual Sensory Impairment: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence on existing informed consent/assent strategies and processes that enable the participation of individuazls with deafblindness or dual sensory impairment in research. DATA SOURCES: were hand-searched from January 2015 until July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: inclusion criteria of sensory and cognitive disabilities and focused on consent/assent strategies and processes in research within this population. Articles related to the medical or sexual consent processes were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: An Excel spreadsheet was used to extract data from the eligible sources. Discrepancies were resolved in discussion with team members. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 2163 sources were screened, and 16 articles were included in the review. Seven sources only examined consent strategies, whereas the remaining 8 included a combination of consent/assent and dissent strategies. Using thematic analysis, 3 key themes emerged: consent/assent strategies, researcher capacity, and capacity to consent tools. Key identified strategies included the accessibility of the consent/assent process, building relationships with participants and caregivers, identifying behavioral cues, and communication training for researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the absence of literature on consent/assent strategies within the population with deafblindness, the review found promising strategies applied to individuals with other cognitive or sensory disabilities that researchers can adopt. Researchers are encouraged to use best practices in creating an inclusive research environment to include individuals with deafblindness.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it