Search

Background: The study aims to understand system barriers to research participation for people with intellectual disabilities. Methods: A mixed‐methods approach examined the inclusivity of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in a random sample of National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) studies conducted in 2019–2020. An online questionnaire (stage 1) was sent to the selected studies lead investigators. An expert by experience panel of 25 people with intellectual disabilities (IDs, stage 2), discussed the stage 1 feedback. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data was conducted. Results: Of 180 studies reviewed, 131 studies (78%) excluded people with IDs. Of these, 45 (34.3%) study researchers provided feedback. Seven (20%) of the 34 studies which included people with IDs gave feedback. Of all respondents over half felt their study had some relevance to people with IDs. A minority (7.6%) stated their study had no relevance. For a quarter of respondents (23.5%), resource issues were a challenge. Qualitative analysis of both stages produced four overarching themes of Research design and delivery, Informed consent, Resource allocation, and Knowledge and skills. Conclusion: Health research continues to exclude people with IDs. Researchers and experts by experience identified non‐accessible research design, lack of confidence with capacity and consent processes, limited resources such as time and a need for training as barriers. Ethics committees appear reluctant to include people with cognitive deficits to 'protect' them. People with IDs want to be included in research, not only as participants but also through coproduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The use of reflection in nursing and midwifery is well-established and reflective skills are taught on both pre- and post-registration courses as a way of integrating theory and practice, and of developing students' critical and analytical skills. Reflection is generally regarded positively with an assumption that reflective skills benefit both practitioners and patients. The aim of this study was to identify the educational strategies used to develop reflective skills in one pre-registration diploma in nursing curriculum., Methods: The survey was cross-sectional in design. A questionnaire was designed for the study to explore perceptions of both students and lecturers in one educational establishment. Curriculum documentation was analysed to examine where in the curriculum the development of reflective skills was prominent. The sample consisted of two student cohorts from the adult branch and all senior lecturers within the Institute who taught on the pre-registration programme., Results: The findings revealed a complex picture of students' and lecturers' views of the teaching and learning strategies used to develop reflective skills. Lectures and group work were the strategies cited most commonly by the students, whereas the lecturers felt the strategies used most often were personal tutorials, group work and case scenarios. The documentary analysis revealed that out of the 13 modules, there was explicit reference in only three modules to reflective practice. Furthermore, it was evident that the majority of lecturers were not clear where in the curriculum reflective skills were taught which suggested that an overview of the whole curriculum is not always evident., Conclusions: Modularisation may have contributed to a fragmentation in the way in which some key health practitioner skills are developed and built upon throughout a curriculum. There needs to be agreement on the nature of the skills which are central to the development of reflective practitioners and clear thinking on how these are developed and assessed within a curriculum.