"You can't be cold and scientific": community views on ethical issues in intellectual disability research

Sleep-disordered breathing in children and adults with intellectual disability: mind the gap!

BACKGROUND

In adults and children with intellectual disability (ID), sleep -disordered breathing (SDB) is thought to be common. However, large epidemiological studies are lacking, and there are few studies on optimal methods of investigation and even fewer randomised, controlled intervention trials of treatment.

METHOD

Peer-reviewed publications from various databases were examined in line with search terms relevant to ID and SDB spanning the years 200-2024.

RESULTS

Findings suggest that, due to comorbid conditions, children and adults with ID may experience both an increased risk of SDB, as well as lower frequency of diagnosis. SDB can compromise the emotional, physical and mental health of individuals with ID. Appropriate treatment when tolerated leads to an improvement in health and well-being and several studies emphasized the importance of consistent follow-up of people with ID - something that is not universally occurring during childhood, in the transition to adulthood and during adulthood itself. As the most frequently occurring form of ID worldwide, we use Down syndrome as a specific example of how diagnosing and treating SDB can lead to improved outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the importance of identifying SDB in this heterogenous population, recognising the multi-faceted, deleterious consequences of untreated SDB in people with ID, and presents some strategies that can be harnessed to improve diagnosis and management. Until further ID-specific research is available, we urge flexibility in the approach to people with ID and SDB based in guidelines and standard practice developed for the typically developing population.

Responsible inclusion: A systematic review of consent to social-behavioral research with adults with intellectual disability in the US

BACKGROUND

In recognition of their status as a health disparities population, there is growing emphasis on conducting research inclusive of adults with intellectual disability to generate new knowledge and opportunities to improve health and equity. Yet they are often excluded from research, and human research participant protection experts and researchers lack agreement on effective consent protocols for their inclusion.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify approaches to consent in US-based social-behavioral research with adults with intellectual disability.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review on approaches to self-consent with adults with intellectual disability published between 2009 and 2023, identified via searching eight databases and reference list hand searches. We identified 13 manuscripts and conducted a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified themes related to guiding principles, strategies to enhance informed and voluntary consent, approaches to consent capacity, involving individuals subject to guardianship, and strategies for expressing decisions and enhancing ongoing decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Manuscripts largely reflected an emphasis on identifying approaches to consent that reflect disability rights principles to promote the right to be included and make one's own decisions based on assessment of relevant information, risks and benefits, and to employ reasonable modifications to achieve inclusion. To avoid the risks of exclusion and advance the responsible inclusion of adults with intellectual disability, we make recommendations to align consent approaches anchored in contemporary thinking about human research participant protections, including through integration with disability rights.

Research ethics for all: Development of a social-behavioral research ethics education program for community research partners with developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

People with developmental disabilities make important contributions to research. However, inaccessible research ethics trainings present a barrier to them taking on some research roles.

OBJECTIVES

We developed a social-behavioral research ethics training that leads to certification tailored to the accessibility needs and roles of community research partners with developmental disabilities.

METHODS

We collaborated with diverse partners (people with developmental disabilities, a disability service provider, health researchers, human research participant protections experts) to develop the research ethics training. To identify potential training content, we conducted a rapid scoping review of ethical, legal, and social issues in social-behavioral research with adults with developmental disabilities and reviewed national research ethics curricula. Through discussions and a modified Delphi process, we worked with partners to identify content to teach; partners also provided guidance on accessibility.

RESULTS

The training and rapid scoping reviews and input from partners resulted in 93 potential educational content elements to include. After completing the modified Delphi process, partners recommended inclusion of 83 of these content elements in the educational training and provided input on depth and approach to teaching this content. Research Ethics for All is a freely available training that includes 5 units, delivered via didactic and active learning, and assessment activities to verify understanding. Research Ethics for All should be facilitated by an experienced researcher.

CONCLUSIONS

Research Ethics for All includes foundational social-behavioral research ethics content designed to support community research partners with developmental disabilities to take on new research responsibilities.

A survey study of the attitudes and experiences of adults with intellectual disability regarding participation in research

BACKGROUND

Historically, people with intellectual disability have been exploited in and excluded from scientific research. To facilitate greater representation of adults with intellectual disability as research respondents, we sought to understand their interest in research participation and factors affecting their willingness to volunteer to participate, such as the core value of trust.

METHODS

Our survey measured attitudes of adults with intellectual disability towards research in general and research specifically involving adults with intellectual disability as respondents, as well as their prior research experiences, trust of researchers and interest in future research participation.

RESULTS

Participants reported positive attitudes towards research and strong interest in future participation opportunities, and trust of researchers was positively correlated to both. The belief that 'research about adults with intellectual disability is very important' also predicted participants' interest in future research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that adults with intellectual disability support the direct involvement of adults with intellectual disability in research as respondents. Trustworthy rapport with researchers and positive views about research foster greater inclusion of this population.

Toward Empathetic Autism Research: Developing an Autism-Specific Research Passport

Autistic adults sometimes report negative experiences of research participation. People have developed passports or toolkits in other areas where community members report dissatisfaction (e.g., health care, criminal justice). We created a Research Passport that autism researchers and autistic adults could use to support the inclusion of autistic adults as research participants. We designed and developed the Research Passport via an iterative design process. First, we gathered ideas for a Research Passport via focus groups with autistic adults without an intellectual disability (ID) (n = 9) and autism researchers (n = 6; one of whom was autistic). We found that the Research Passport (1) was a useful idea, but not a panacea for all issues in autism research, (2) needed to be universal and flexible, and (3) could have a broad remit (e.g., to record scores on commonly used standardized tasks that could, with permission, be shared with different researchers). Next, we conducted a preliminary evaluation of a prototype Research Passport via usability testing in three ongoing research projects. Nine autistic participants without an ID provided feedback on the Research Passport (via a survey), as did three nonautistic researchers (via interviews). We found that the Research Passport (1) promoted positive participant-researcher relationships, (2) provided a structure and framework to support existing practices, and (3) needed to be adapted slightly to facilitate usability and manage expectations. Overall, the Research Passport was useful in promoting empathetic autism research. Further design and development of the Research Passport are warranted.

Lay summary

Why was this research developed?: Autistic adults taking part in research do not always have good experiences. An autistic member on our team thought that a Research Passport could help improve people's experiences. This idea was inspired by "passports" or "toolkits" that autistic people can use when visiting professionals such as doctors (so the doctor knows about the person and how to support them).What does the Research Passport do?: The Research Passport lets autistic people tell researchers about themselves before taking part in a research study. Autistic people can decide how much, or how little, they tell the researcher. Autistic and/or nonautistic researchers can use the Research Passport to try and make sure that their autistic participants have good experiences when taking part in research.How did the researchers evaluate the Research Passport?: First, nine autistic adults (who did not have an intellectual disability) and six autism researchers took part in group discussions. We asked what they thought about our Research Passport idea and what it should include. We made a Research Passport mock-up based on these discussions. Nine autistic participants who did not have an intellectual disability used the mock-up in one of three university research projects. Autistic participants completed a survey to tell us good and not-so-good things about the Research Passport. Also, we interviewed three researchers about using the Research Passport (asking what they liked and what could have been better).What were the findings?: Autistic adults and researchers involved in designing the Research Passport thought the Research Passport (1) could be useful but could not solve all problems in autism research, (2) needed to be suitable for many different people, and (3) could have many different benefits (e.g., collecting participants' scores on tests that researchers use a lot, so participants do not have to keep doing the same tests each time they take part in a new research study).Autistic adults and researchers used the Research Passport in ongoing studies and told us that it (1) led to good relationships between participants and researchers, (2) helped researchers make sure that the way they did their research was acceptable, and (3) was useful. However, participants need to be told what the Research Passport can/cannot help them with.What were the weaknesses of this project?: This study involved a small group of autistic adults and researchers, and the results may not be the same with autistic adults and researchers who have different needs. Also, participants said the Research Passport was not very easy to complete, and a bit long. We need to change the Research Passport so that a wider range of autistic people (like those with intellectual disability) can use it.What are the next steps?: The Research Passport needs to be professionally designed so it is easier to be used by a wider range of autistic people. A bigger evaluation of the Research Passport could allow us to test it with more participants and in more research studies.How will this work help autistic adults now or in the future?: Using the Research Passport could, with some changes and alongside other supports, improve the experience of autistic adults taking part in research.

Prospective Trial of CPAP in Community-Dwelling Adults with Down Syndrome and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome

Adults with Down syndrome (DS) are predisposed to obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), but the effectiveness and acceptability of continuous positive airway pressure treatment (CPAP) in this group has rarely been formally assessed. This study was designed as a pilot randomised, parallel controlled trial for one month, continuing as an uncontrolled cohort study whereby the control group also received the intervention. Symptomatic, community-dwelling DS individuals exhibiting ≥10 apnoeas/hypopneas per hour in bed on a Type 3 home sleep study were invited to participate in this study, with follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from baseline. Measurements of sleepiness, behaviour, cognitive function and general health were undertaken; the primary outcome was a change in the pictorial Epworth Sleepiness Scale (pESS) score. Twenty-eight participants (19 male) were enrolled: age 28 ± 9 year; body mass index 31.5 ± 7.9 kg/m2; 39.6 ± 32.2 apnoeas/hypopneas per hour in bed; pESS 11 ± 6/24. The pilot randomised controlled trial at one month demonstrated no change between the groups. At 12 months, participant (p = 0.001) pESS and Disruptive (p < 0.0001), Anxiety/Antisocial (p = 0.024), and Depressive (p = 0.008) behaviour scores were reduced compared to baseline. Improvement was noted in verbal (p = 0.001) and nonverbal intelligence scores (p = 0.011). General health scores also improved (p = 0.02). At the end of the trial, 19 participants continued on treatment. Use of CPAP in adults with DS and OSA led to a number of significant, sustained improvements in sleepiness and behavioural/emotional outcomes at 12 months.

Fostering Health Literacy Responsiveness in a Remote Primary Health Care Setting: A Pilot Study

Primary healthcare organisations have an important role in addressing health literacy as this is a barrier to accessing and utilising health care. Until recently, no organisational development tool operationalising health literacy in an Australian context existed. This research evaluated the efficacy of the Organisational Health Literacy Responsiveness (Org-HLR) tool and associated assessment process in a primary healthcare organisation in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. This study utilised a sequential explanatory mixed methods research design incorporating the collection and analysis of data in two phases: (1) Pre- and post-survey data and; (2) seven semi-structured interviews. Survey results showed that participants’ confidence in core health literacy concepts improved from baseline following the intervention. Analysis of the interview data revealed participants’ initial understanding of health literacy was limited, and this impeded organisational responsiveness to health literacy needs. Participants reported the workshop and tool content were relevant to their organisation; they valued involving members from all parts of the organisation and having an external facilitator to ensure the impartiality of the process. External barriers to improving their internal organisational health literacy responsiveness were identified, with participants acknowledging the management style and culture of open communication within the organisation as enablers of change. Participants identified actionable changes to improve their organisational health literacy responsiveness using the process of organisational assessment and change.

The Rasch Analysis of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities

Background

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) using the Rasch model and to determine whether the scale is valid and reliable for use with this population.

Methods

Rasch analysis was carried out on data from 223 respondents to the 8th Panel Survey on Employment for the Disabled conducted by the Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled. The validity and reliability of scale items were verified through analyses of item fit, item difficulties, the rating scale, and separation indices.

Results

Item infit mean square values were found to range between 0.71 and 1.25, and item outfit mean square values between 0.71 and 1.26. Additionally, item difficulties were appropriate; Item 4 was the most difficult item, while Item 10 was the easiest item. The 4-point rating scale was appropriate, and the separation indices were at an acceptable level.

Conclusion

Based on these results, the validity and reliability of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for use with individuals with ID were verified. Thus, this scale can be regarded as a useful tool for evaluating the level of self-esteem of individuals with ID.

Recruiting and Retaining People With Disabilities for Qualitative Health Research: Challenges and Solutions

There are 56.7 million people with disabilities (PWD) living in the United States; yet, PWD are significantly underrepresented in health research. Even when researchers purposively seek to include PWD in studies, challenges emerge related to recruitment and retention, leading to inadequate representation and surface understandings of this population. This in turn contributes to the perpetuation of implicit and explicit health disparities that are already experienced by this population. Grounded within a qualitative, community-based participatory health research framework, we highlight challenges associated with recruiting and retaining PWD in health research, including a critical analysis of the research enterprise structure, how this disables accessible research practices for PWD, and leads to continued skepticism among PWD regarding the value of participating in research. Finally, we propose solutions to create and maintain a culture of access and inclusion as well as long-term collaborative and equity-focused partnerships.

Disability inclusion in precision medicine research: a first national survey

PURPOSE

Including people with disabilities in precision medicine research (PMR) is key for increasing cohorts' diversity, improving understanding of population health, and attaining social justice for the United States' largest health disparities group. We conducted a national survey to explore the views of people with disabilities about PMR.

METHODS

An online survey was developed in disability-accessible formats. Key questions included views on PMR, willingness to participate and to provide data, perceived barriers to participation and potential remedies, and interest in engagement in the study. Analyses described results for all participants and compared results for key demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 1294 participants completed the survey. Participants expressed strong support for PMR, and willingness to participate in PMR; to provide lifestyle, biological, and medical information; and to engage with the study. However, 76% identified a total of 3 to 8 barriers to participation, and most would not provide environmental samples or information from their social media account(s) and activity trackers. Differences were observed across racial, ethnic, and gender groups and are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to disability inclusion need to be removed, and further research conducted to better understand concerns about PMR and to develop studies that resonate with the interests and needs of this population.

Cultivating inclusivity in precision medicine research: disability, diversity, and cultural competence

Cultural competence is increasingly viewed as key for the inclusion of diverse populations in precision medicine research (PMR) in the USA. Precision medicine researchers and personnel are thus increasingly expected to undergo cultural competency trainings and to engage with relevant racial/ethnic communities to ensure that all research components are culturally and linguistically sensitive to these communities. However, the need for PMR enterprises to ensure competence with and understanding of disability rights, history, and needs (hereinafter disability culture competency) have not received attention. This article discusses the importance of disability inclusivity in PMR and the construct-and challenges-of disability as a cultural community. Reviewing and extrapolating from studies in healthcare settings, the article considers three interrelated issues that are likely to impact disability inclusivity in PMR: disability accessibility and accommodation; disability stigma and unconsious bias; and disability language and communication. Next, disability competency trainings that were developed in healthcare settings are surveyed and their applicability for PMR is discussed. The arguments advanced are that disability culture competency among precision medicine researchers, personnel, and oversight committees is essential to upholding the welfare and rights of human subjects with disabilities in PMR; that engagement with disability communities is imperative for this endeavor; and that such knowledge of disability culture is crucial for cultivating inclusivity of people with different (dis)abilities in PMR.

The POMONA-ESP project methodology: Collecting data on health indicators for people with intellectual developmental disorders

BACKGROUND

People with intellectual developmental disorders have significant health disparities and a lack of proper attention to their health needs. They have been underrepresented in scientific research, and very few studies have been carried out using a representative randomized sample. The aim of this study was to describe the methods used in the POMONA-ESP project to recruit a representative and randomized sample of participants with intellectual developmental disorders.

METHODS

The POMONA-ESP project is an observational cross-sectional study. It aims to explore the health status of people with intellectual developmental disorders across Spain and the use they make of health services.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the POMONA-ESP project may have a major impact on people with intellectual developmental disorders and society in general. It is the first study to obtain geographically representative epidemiological data from a large sample, information that is fundamental to improving care and healthcare planning for people with intellectual developmental disorders.

A quantitative study of attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability: Do stakeholders agree?

BACKGROUND

Attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability inform research policy and practice, impact interest in and support for research participation, and promote or discourage the generation of new knowledge to promote health among adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about these beliefs among the public and the scientific community.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We quantitatively studied attitudes among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. We predicted that adults with intellectual disability, and researchers would espouse views most consistent with disability rights, whereas IRB members, and to a lesser degree family, friends, and service providers, would espouse more protective views.

METHODS

We surveyed five hundred and twelve members of the five participant stakeholder groups on their attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability.

RESULTS

We found broad support for research about people with intellectual disability, though slightly more tempered support for their direct participation therein. In general, IRB members and to some extent adults with intellectual disability endorsed direct participation less than others. We also found that adults with intellectual disability strongly believed in their consent capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources should be directed toward health-related research with adults with intellectual disability, and interventions should be pursued to address ethical challenges and promote beliefs consistent with human rights.

What's the Harm? Harms in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Scientific advances can improve the lives of adults with intellectual disability, yet concerns that research participation may impose harm impede scientific progress. What counts as harmful can be subjective and perceptions of harm may vary among stakeholders. We studied perspectives on the harmfulness of research events among adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board members. We found considerable variance. For example, adults with intellectual disability see exclusion from research as more harmful, but most psychosocial harms as less significant than others. All stakeholders agree that having someone else make the participation decision is harmful. Findings provide insights into the concept of harm and ethical research with adults with intellectual disability.

Is It Worth It? Benefits in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Including adults with intellectual disability in research promotes direct benefits to participants and larger societal benefits. Stakeholders may have different views of what count as benefits and their importance. We compared views on benefits in research with adults with intellectual disability among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, service providers, researchers, and institutional review board members. We found that adults with intellectual disability value direct and indirect research benefits, and want to participate in research that offers them. Other stakeholders generally see less value in direct benefits and predict more tempered interest in research participation as compared to adults with intellectual disability. To promote respectful research participation, research policy and practice should incorporate the views of adults with intellectual disability.

Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Human subjects research has a core commitment to participant well-being. This obligation is accentuated for once exploited populations such as adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about the public's views on appropriate safeguards for this population. We surveyed adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members to compare views on safeguards. We found many points of convergence of views, particularly for decision-making and participation. One trend is that adults with intellectual disability perceive greater safety in being engaged directly in recruitment, and recruitment by specific individuals. Researchers and IRB members need to consider community views to facilitate the safe and respectful inclusion of adults with intellectual disability.