MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411778913 · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibaf027

Supporting disability-inclusive knowledge translation and patient access to knowledge: A synthesis of select special education theories

2025· review· en· W4411778913 on OpenAlex
John C. Hayvon, Mary Roduta Roberts

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Behavioral Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKnowledge translationSpecial educationScholarshipEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)ScopusMedical educationPsychologyKnowledge managementMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceMEDLINEComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equitable access to knowledge and knowledge translation that is inclusive to marginalized patients-including those whose health conditions have resulted in lifelong disability-may be supportive of health equity. In enhancing the evidence base of what constitutes disability-inclusive knowledge translation, patients may be better supported in their health literacy, self-management, or autonomy in making health-related decisions. To identify potential guiding principles from the discipline of special education that has been invested in providing equitable access to knowledge for patients living with disabilities across all age groups. Qualitative synthesis of existing theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) in special education is performed to identify constructs which may guide disability-inclusive knowledge translation. A search methodology adapted from PRISMA-ScR was conducted in Web of Science and Scopus to identify review-type studies in special education scholarship. A total of 69 unique review-type studies were retrieved in the English language, resulting in 21 meeting the inclusion criteria of presenting a special education TMF with potential to inform knowledge translation. Ten themes emerged through data charting of theoretical constructs, as well as open coding of five studies. Findings that may promote disability-inclusive knowledge translation are presented in a synthesized framework with 25 considerations. Special education TMFs are diverse in focus; this first-steps study illustrates significant potential of special education TMFs in informing disability-inclusive knowledge translation. Future studies that engage with a more expansive set of special education TMFs will bring value to implementation science.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.386 · 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