Methodological Approaches to Obtaining Informed Consent when Conducting Research With Individuals With Deafblindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed consent is essential in research involving people with disabilities to protect their rights and ensure ethical conduct. Individuals with communicative vulnerability, such as those living with deafblindness, face difficulties when the research process is not accessible. Our team has developed methodological expertise where this vulnerable population is concerned. To formalize recommendations that can improve their inclusion, we utilized an observational, retrospective design to address three questions: What are procedures that facilitate recruitment in a lab specializing on working with individuals living with deafblindness? What are optimal procedural adaptations to obtaining informed consent? and What training can best prepare researchers working with individuals living with deafblindness? First, we conducted a textual narrative synthesis of our eight most recent protocols and procedures that required in-person interaction with adults living with deafblindness. Second, we conducted semi-structured discussions among our team members, and third, we engaged in a validation procedure of the synthesized recommendations with our external partners. Procedural adaptations require flexibility in all aspects of recruitment and consent to accommodate communication needs. These include additional time, and accessible formats. Adaptations should consider vision (e.g., large-print, braille) and hearing (e.g., sign language, communication strategies) as well as aspects unique to deafblindness (e.g., intervener support, tactile communication). Consent can be documented in hand-written, electronic, audio or video-recorded format, and may be facilitated by third parties. Team training should include proficiency in plain language, basic knowledge about deafblindness, and awareness of accessibility features for mainstream devices. We present simple steps that can improve inclusion and increase accessibility for participants living with deafblindness, and that can improve the capacity of the research team by developing flexibility, patience, respect, and trust. This information can further inform institutional ethics review boards that are unfamiliar with the logistics of obtaining informed consent when working with participants living 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.055 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".