↓ Skip to main content

A consensus statement on how to conduct inclusive health research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A consensus statement on how to conduct inclusive health research
Published in
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1111/jir.12486
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. K. Frankena, J. Naaldenberg, M. Cardol, E. Garcia Iriarte, T. Buchner, K. Brooker, P. Embregts, E. Joosa, F. Crowther, A. Fudge Schormans, A. Schippers, J. Walmsley, P. O'Brien, C. Linehan, R. Northway, H. van Schrojenstein Lantman‐de Valk, G. Leusink

Abstract

The active involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in research, or inclusive research, is relatively common. However, inclusive health research is less common, even though it is expected to lead to appropriate healthcare and increased quality of life. Inclusive health research can build upon lessons learned from inclusive research. A total of 17 experts on inclusive (health) research without intellectual disabilities and 40 experts with intellectual disabilities collaborated in this consensus statement. The consensus statement was developed in three consecutive rounds: (1) an initial feedback round; (2) a roundtable discussion at the 2016 International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities World Congress; and (3) a final feedback round. This consensus statement provides researchers with guidelines, agreed upon by experts in the field, regarding attributes, potential outcomes, reporting and publishing, and future research directions, for designing and conducting inclusive health research. Consensus was reached on how to design and conduct inclusive health research. However, this statement should be continuously adapted to incorporate recent knowledge. The focus of this consensus statement is largely on inclusive health research, but the principles can also be applied to other areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,666,417
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
#225
of 1,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,028
of 346,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.