Defining dignity at the intersection of disability: a scoping review.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Disability and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1080/09638288.2024.2302582
Kelsey Chapman, Angel Dixon, Elizabeth Kendall, Kelly Clanchy
{"title":"Defining dignity at the intersection of disability: a scoping review.","authors":"Kelsey Chapman, Angel Dixon, Elizabeth Kendall, Kelly Clanchy","doi":"10.1080/09638288.2024.2302582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This scoping literature review aimed to determine the definition of dignity in relation to disability. It also examined the extent to which inclusive research methods have been used to develop working definitions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in five electronic databases, using a modified framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Narrative synthesis and qualitative content analysis were employed to examine definitions of dignity and the use of inclusive research methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>22 peer-reviewed studies were included. The majority of the studies were qualitative (72.72%) and examined various disability populations in diverse settings. Although 19 studies offered a definition of dignity, there was no clear consensus. Dignity was frequently defined from a utilitarian perspective, emphasising affordances and barriers. However, engagement with theoretical constructs was superficial and limited. Further, no studies mentioned the use of inclusive research methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The absence of inclusive research methods hinders the development of a comprehensive definition of dignity that is accepted by and relevant to people with disability. Engaging with both theoretical and empirical perspectives of dignity is crucial to develop a meaningful and inclusive definition, which can inform interventions and policies that enhance dignity for people with disability across diverse settings and contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":50575,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"5404-5414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2024.2302582","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This scoping literature review aimed to determine the definition of dignity in relation to disability. It also examined the extent to which inclusive research methods have been used to develop working definitions.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in five electronic databases, using a modified framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Narrative synthesis and qualitative content analysis were employed to examine definitions of dignity and the use of inclusive research methods.

Results: 22 peer-reviewed studies were included. The majority of the studies were qualitative (72.72%) and examined various disability populations in diverse settings. Although 19 studies offered a definition of dignity, there was no clear consensus. Dignity was frequently defined from a utilitarian perspective, emphasising affordances and barriers. However, engagement with theoretical constructs was superficial and limited. Further, no studies mentioned the use of inclusive research methods.

Conclusions: The absence of inclusive research methods hinders the development of a comprehensive definition of dignity that is accepted by and relevant to people with disability. Engaging with both theoretical and empirical perspectives of dignity is crucial to develop a meaningful and inclusive definition, which can inform interventions and policies that enhance dignity for people with disability across diverse settings and contexts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在残疾问题的交叉点上定义尊严:范围界定审查。
目的:本范围性文献综述旨在确定与残疾有关的尊严定义。它还考察了包容性研究方法在多大程度上被用于制定工作定义:采用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 修改过的框架,在五个电子数据库中进行了全面搜索。采用叙事综合法和定性内容分析法对尊严的定义和包容性研究方法的使用进行了研究。大部分研究为定性研究(72.72%),研究对象为不同环境中的各种残疾人群。虽然有 19 项研究给出了尊严的定义,但并没有达成明确的共识。尊严通常是从功利的角度来定义的,强调承受能力和障碍。然而,对理论建构的涉及是肤浅和有限的。此外,没有研究提到使用包容性研究方法:结论:包容性研究方法的缺失阻碍了尊严全面定义的发展,而这一定义既为残障人士所接受,也与他们息息相关。对尊严的理论和实证观点进行研究对于制定一个有意义的包容性定义至关重要,该定义可为干预措施和政策提供依据,从而在不同的环境和背景下提高残疾人的尊严。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Disability and Rehabilitation
Disability and Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
415
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Disability and Rehabilitation along with Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology are international multidisciplinary journals which seek to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability and to promote rehabilitation science, practice and policy aspects of the rehabilitation process.
期刊最新文献
"More than effort, it's dedicating time and perseverance." experiences of physical activity and physical exercise in stroke survivor with high functional capacity: a qualitative study. Development and validation of an observational tool to measure engagement in telepractice early intervention. Exploring perspectives on implementing the World Health Assembly's Resolution for Strengthening Rehabilitation in Health Systems in Switzerland: a representative rehabilitation stakeholder survey. The Albanian version of the Oswestry Disability Index: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability. Understanding loneliness and its correlates among people with spinal cord injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1