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.
AbascalJ.CivitA. (2000, October). Mobile communication for older people: New opportunities for autonomous life. Paper presented at the 6th ERCIM Workshop “User Interfaces for All,”Florence, Italy.
2.
AkkermanA.JanssenC. G.KefS.MeiningerH. P. (2014). Perspectives of employees with intellectual disabilities on themes relevant to their job satisfaction. An explorative study using photovoice. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 542–554. doi:10.1111/jar.12092
3.
AndersonM. L.RikerT.GagneK.HakulinS.HigginsT.MeehanJ. . . . Wolf CraigK. S. (2018). Deaf qualitative health research: Leveraging technology to conduct linguistically and sociopolitically appropriate methods of inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 28, 1813–1824. doi:10.1177/1049732318779050
4.
AtkinsonR. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BarnesC. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing “emancipatory” disability research. Disability & Society, 18, 3–17. doi:10.1080/713662197
6.
BarnesC. (2009). An ethical agenda in disability research: Rhetoric or reality? In MertensD. M.GinsbergP. E. (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 458–473). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
BeatonS. J.Sperl-HillenJ. M.WorleyA. V.FernandesO. D.BaumerD.HansonA. M.. . . SpainC. V. (2010). A comparative analysis of recruitment methods used in a randomized trial of diabetes education interventions. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 31, 549–557. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.005
8.
BeckerH.RobertsG.MorrisonJ.SilverJ.TaubS. (2004). Recruiting people with disabilities as research participants: Challenges and strategies to address them. Mental Retardation, 42, 471–475. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42<471:RPWDAR>2.0.CO;2
9.
BellK. R.HammondF.HartT.BickettA. K.TemkinN. R.DikmenS. (2008). Participant recruitment and retention in rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 87, 330–338. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e318168d092
10.
BigbyC.FrawleyP.RamcharanP. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 3–12. doi:10.1111/jar.12083
11.
BoxallK.RalphS. (2011). Research ethics committees and the benefits of involving people with profound and multiple learning disabilities in research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 173–180. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2010.00645.x
BruckerD. L.HoutenvilleA. J. (2015). People with disabilities in the United States. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96, 771–774. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.02.024
14.
CaldwellK. (2014). Dyadic interviewing: A technique valuing interdependence in interviews with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Qualitative Research, 14, 488–507. doi:10.1177/1468794113490718
15.
CareyE.GriffithsC. (2017). Recruitment and consent of adults with intellectual disabilities in a classic grounded theory research study: Ethical and methodological considerations. Disability & Society, 32, 193–212. doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1281793
16.
ChadwickD.WessonC.FullwoodC. (2013). Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: Inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet, 5, 376–397.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
19.
CrookB.TomlinsR.BancroftA.OgiL. (2015). “So often they do not get recruited”: Exploring service user and staff perspectives on participation in learning disability research and the barriers that inhibit it. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 130–137. doi:10.1111/bid.12120
DenhamM. A.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2013). Beyond words: Using nonverbal communication data in research to enhance thick description and interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 670–696. doi:10.1177/160940691301200137
22.
DuranB.WallersteinN.MinklerM.FoleyK. (2012). Developing and maintaining partnerships with communities. In IsraelB. A.EngE.SchulzA.ParkerE. (Eds.), Methods for community-based participatory research for health (pp. 43–68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Ellard-GrayA.JeffreyN. K.ChoubakM.CrannS. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5). doi:10.1177/1609406915621420
24.
GarcÌa IriarteE.O’BrienP.McConkeyR.WolfeM.O’DohertyS. (2014). Identifying the key concerns of Irish persons with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 564–575. doi:10.1111/jar.12099
25.
GoldsmithL.SkirtonH. (2015). Research involving people with a learning disability–methodological challenges and ethical considerations. Journal of Research in Nursing, 20, 435–446. doi:10.1177/1744987115591867
26.
GoodwinJ.MasonV.WilliamsV.TownsleyR. (2015). Easy information about research: Getting the message out to people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 93–99. doi:10.1111/bld.12128
27.
GustafsonD. L.BrungerF. (2014). Ethics, “vulnerability,” and feminist participatory action research with a disability community. Qualitative Health Research, 24, 997–1005. doi:10.1177/1049732314538122
28.
HammelJ.MagasiS.HeinemannA.GrayD. B.StarkS.KisalaP.CarlozziN. E.TulskyD.GarciaS. F.HahnE. A. (2015). Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: a qualitative insider perspective from people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medecine and Rehabilitation, 96, 578-88. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.12.008.
29.
HoppestadB. S. (2013). Current perspective regarding adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities accessing computer technology. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8, 190–194. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.723239
30.
IaconoT. (2006). Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31, 173–179. doi:10.1080/13668250600876392
31.
Institute of Medicine. (2007). The future of disability in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
32.
KaneS. K.JayantC.WobbrockJ. O.LadnerR. E. (2009). Freedom to roam: A study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. ASSETS, 115–122. doi:10.1145/1639642.1639663
KitchinR. (2000). The researched opinions on research: Disabled people and disability research. Disability and Society, 15, 25–47. doi:10.1080/09687590025757
35.
KrahnG. L.Klein WalkerD.Correa-De-AraujoR. (2015). Persons with disabilities as an unrecognized health disparity population. American Journal of Public Health, 105(S2), S198–S206. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302182
36.
KrollT.BarbourR.HarrisJ. (2007). Using focus groups in disability research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 690–698. doi:10.1177/1049732307301488
37.
LennoxN.TaylorM.Rey-CondeT.BainC.PurdieD. M.BoyleF. (2005). Beating the barriers: Recruitment of people with intellectual disability to participate in research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(Pt. 4), 296–305. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00618.x
38.
LevittH. M.BambergM.CreswellJ. W.FrostD. M.JosselsonR.Suárez-OrozcoC. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. AmericanPsychologist, 73, 26–46.
39.
MagasiS. (2012). Negotiating the social service systems: A vital yet frequently invisible occupation. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 32, 25–33. doi:10.3928/15394492-20110906-03
40.
MagasiS.HammelJ. (2009). Women with disabilities’ experiences in long-term care: A case for social justice. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 35–45.
41.
ManningC. (2010). “My memory’s back!” Inclusive learning disability research using ethics, oral history and digital storytelling. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 160–167. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2009.00567.x
42.
McClimensA.AllmarkP. (2011). A problem with inclusion in learning disability research. Nursing Ethics, 18, 633–639. doi:10.1177/0969733011404588
43.
McDonaldK. E.SchwartzN. M.GibbonsC. M.OlickR. S. (2015). “You can’t be cold and scientific”: Community views on ethical issues in intellectual disability research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10, 196–206. doi:10.1177/1556264615575512
44.
MilesA. L.NishidaA.Forber-PrattA. J. (2011). An open letter to White disability studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(3). doi:10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5997
45.
NaryD. E.Froehlich-GrobeK.AaronsonL. (2011). Recruitment issues in a randomized controlled exercise trial targeting wheelchair users. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32, 188–195. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2010.10.010
46.
NindM.VinhaH. (2014). Doing research inclusively: Bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 102–109. doi:10.1111/bld.12013
47.
NorthwayR.HowarthJ.EvansL. (2015). Participatory research, people with intellectual disabilities and ethical approval: Making reasonable adjustments to enable participation. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 573–581. doi:10.1111/jocn.12702
48.
O’BrienP.McConkeyR.GarcÌa IriarteE. (2014). Co-researching with people who have intellectual disabilities: Insights from a national survey. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 65–75. doi:10.1111/jar.12074
49.
OliverM. (1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
50.
PopeA. M.TarlovA. R. (1991). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
51.
ProvencherW.MortensonW. B.Tanguay-GarneauL.BélangerK.DagenaisM. (2014). Challenges and strategies pertaining to recruitment and retention of frail elderly in research studies: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 59, 18–24. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.006
52.
PuyaltoC.PalliseraM.FullanaJ.VilaM. (2016). Doing research together: A study on the views of advisors with intellectual disabilities and non-disabled researchers collaborating in research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 29, 146–159. doi:10.1111/jar.12165
53.
RugkåsaJ.CanvinK. (2011). Researching mental health in minority ethnic communities: Reflections on recruitment. Qualitative Health Research, 21, 132–143. doi:10.1177/1049732310379115
54.
SalmonN.CareyE. (2013). Research active programme: An inclusive research module in 3rd level education. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 244. doi:10.1111/bld.12056
55.
SheldonJ. (2017). Problematizing reflexivity, validity, and disclosure: Research by people with disabilities about disability. Qualitative Report, 22, 984–1000.
56.
SmithL. J. (2008). How ethical is ethical research? Recruiting marginalized, vulnerable groups into health services research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 248–257. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04567.x
57.
Smith-ChandlerN.SwartE. (2014). In their own voices: Methodological considerations in narrative disability research. Qualitative Health Research, 24, 420–430. doi:10.1177/1049732314523841
58.
StoneE.PriestleyM. (1996). Parasites, pawns and partners: Disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers. The British Journal of Sociology, 47, 699–716. doi:10.2307/591081
59.
StonemanZ. (2007). Disability research methodology: Current issues and future challenges. In OdomS. L.HornerR. H.SnellM. E.BlacherJ. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 35–54). New York: Guilford Press.
60.
StrnadovàI.CummingT. M.KnoxM.ParmenterT. (2014). Building an inclusive research team: The importance of team building and skills training. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 13–22. doi:10.1111/jar.12076
61.
SwaineJ.ParishS. L.LukenK.AtkinsL. (2011). Recruitment and consent of women with intellectual disabilities in a randomised control trial of a health promotion intervention. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55, 474–483. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01399.x
62.
TregaskisC.GoodleyD. (2005). Disability research by disabled and non-disabled people: Towards a relational methodology of research production. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 363–374. doi:10.1080/13645570500402439
63.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, United Nations § Article 1—Purpose. (2006).
64.
WhiteE. L.MorganM. F. (2012). Yes! I am a researcher. The research story of a young adult with Down syndrome. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 101–108. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2012.00745.x
65.
WilliamsA. S.MooreS. M. (2011). Universal design of research: Inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream biomedical studies. Science Translational Medicine, 3(82), 82cm12. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3002133
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
