OBJECTIVES: To study health inequalities in persons with intellectual disabilities, representative and unbiased samples are needed. Little is known about sample recruitment in this vulnerable group. This study aimed to determine differences in ethical procedures and sample recruitment in a multicenter research on health of persons with intellectual disabilities. Study questions regarded the practical sampling procedure, how ethical consent was obtained in each country, and which person gave informed consent for each study participant. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Exploratory, as part of a multicenter study, in 14 European countries. After developing identical guidelines for all countries, partners collected data on health indicators by orally interviewing 1,269 persons with intellectual disabilities. Subsequently, semistructured interviews were carried out with partners and researchers. RESULTS: Identification of sufficient study participants proved feasible. Sampling frames differed from nationally estimated proportions of persons with intellectual disabilities living with families or in residential settings. Sometimes, people with intellectual disabilities were hard to trace. Consent procedures and legal representation varied broadly. Nonresponse data proved unavailable. CONCLUSION: To build representative unbiased samples of vulnerable groups with limited academic capacities, international consensus on respectful consent procedures and tailored patient information is necessary. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To study health inequalities in persons with intellectual disabilities, representative and unbiased samples are needed. Little is known about sample recruitment in this vulnerable group. This study aimed to determine differences in ethical procedures and sample recruitment in a multicenter research on health of persons with intellectual disabilities. Study questions regarded the practical sampling procedure, how ethical consent was obtained in each country, and which person gave informed consent for each study participant. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Exploratory, as part of a multicenter study, in 14 European countries. After developing identical guidelines for all countries, partners collected data on health indicators by orally interviewing 1,269 persons with intellectual disabilities. Subsequently, semistructured interviews were carried out with partners and researchers. RESULTS: Identification of sufficient study participants proved feasible. Sampling frames differed from nationally estimated proportions of persons with intellectual disabilities living with families or in residential settings. Sometimes, people with intellectual disabilities were hard to trace. Consent procedures and legal representation varied broadly. Nonresponse data proved unavailable. CONCLUSION: To build representative unbiased samples of vulnerable groups with limited academic capacities, international consensus on respectful consent procedures and tailored patient information is necessary. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: William F Sullivan; Joseph M Berg; Elspeth Bradley; Tom Cheetham; Richard Denton; John Heng; Brian Hennen; David Joyce; Maureen Kelly; Marika Korossy; Yona Lunsky; Shirley McMillan Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: R Martínez-Leal; L Salvador-Carulla; C Linehan; P Walsh; G Weber; G Van Hove; T Määttä; B Azema; M Haveman; S Buono; A Germanavicius; H van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk; J Tossebro; A Carmen-Câra; D Moravec Berger; J Perry; M Kerr Journal: J Intellect Disabil Res Date: 2011-07-05
Authors: Donald B Bailey; Melissa Raspa; Anne Wheeler; Anne Edwards; Ellen Bishop; Carla Bann; David Borasky; Paul S Appelbaum Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Robert D Furberg; Alexa M Ortiz; Rebecca R Moultrie; Melissa Raspa; Anne C Wheeler; Lauren A McCormack; Donald B Bailey Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-06-06