Literacy instruction for students with disabilities: An analysis of mainstream primary school teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and use of evidence-based practices.

There has been a growing movement in education to ensure that teachers use evidence-based practices. This is especially important for students with disabilities, as these students often require literacy instruction tailored to their specific learning needs. Results of empirical evidence suggest that this is not always the case, and that teachers continue to incorporate instructional methods with little or no evidence to support their use. To gain a deeper understanding into this, teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and use of evidence-based practices in literacy for students with disabilities were explored using qualitative methodology. Data were collected and analysed from interviews and observations with twenty-three teachers of Year 3 students across eight mainstream, independent, private schools in New South Wales, Australia. As data were collected, they were analysed using a grounded theory approach. The three themes that finally emerged included: (i) Knowledge of evidence-based practices, (ii) Student diversity, and (iii) Other influences that impact teaching practice. The most influential factor was teachers’ knowledge of evidence-based practices. This was closely linked to professional development, and the planning and organisation of the school. The findings revealed that teachers’ knowledge of evidence-based practices was lacking, and left them feeling ill-equipped and helpless. This was further compounded by the diverse needs of students, which emerged as the second theme. A need for more time and collaboration between teachers, special educators, and allied health professionals was identified in the third theme. These findings make a significant contribution to the literature on evidence-based practices in literacy instruction for students with disabilities as they are grounded in the data. Careful consideration of these is critical for practice, policymakers, and further research to ensure effective literacy practices are utilised for students with disabilities

"All doctors should be trained in that": The coproduction and mixed-methods evaluation of an educational toolkit to enable safe, high-quality genetic health care for people with intellectual disability.

PURPOSE: People with intellectual disability inequitably access high-quality genetic health care. However, they are keen to understand genetic health care and recommend that clinicians need education on delivering more inclusive care and that multimodal genetic health literacy resources should be coproduced. METHODS: Our inclusive research team applied best-practice coproduction principles to deliver a suite of resources, the GeneEQUAL Toolkit. Mixed-methods evaluation, including surveys and focus group/interviews, assessed (1) clinicians' perceived capabilities, motivation, and opportunities for providing inclusive health care for people with intellectual disability before and after exploring the Toolkit; (2) the perceptions and opinions of people with intellectual disability about the Toolkit; (3) the reach of the Toolkit components; and (4) the reflections of people with intellectual disability and clinicians on the coproduction process. RESULTS: The Toolkit met the expectations and preferences of people with intellectual disability and clinicians, and had a global reach. Coproduction was feasible and judged as critical for the high value of the Toolkit, in motivating clinicians to change their clinical practice and empowering people with intellectual disability. CONCLUSION: Coproduction can be successfully applied to improve the engagement of people with intellectual disability, potentially reducing health inequity and improving the safety and quality of genetic health care

“I Was Taught That My Being Was Inherently Wrong”: Is Applied Behavioural Analysis A Socially Valid Practice?

While an ongoing passionate controversary over the use of Applied Behaviour Analysis has been raging on the Internet in online forums and blogs, little has been written about the issue in the professional literature. We discuss this debate and report the results of a pilot study conducted with autistic participants who have had experience with Applied Behaviour Analysis. It was discovered that there are different understandings and definitions about what ABA actually is. The results highlighted that ABA means different things to different people, and some participants who experienced ABA as children view the practice negatively and feel that it causes trauma. The importance of the consideration of social validity when choosing behavioural interventions for students with disabilities is highlighted, as ABA researchers do not often ask people experiencing the therapy how they feel about it. The main recommendation was that those who use ABA should ask students with disabilities how they feel about the treatment and listen to them when setting treatment goals

Cervical screening participation and access facilitators and barriers for people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe World Health Organisation’s vision of eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem is achievable, but elimination must be achieved equitably, including for people with intellectual disability. A better understanding of cervical screening within the context of the lives of people with intellectual disability is needed. This study systematically reviewed research on the rates of cervical screening participation among people with intellectual disability, and facilitators and barriers that affect participation.MethodSix electronic databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase and Pro-Quest Central Social Sciences Collection. Empirical studies published between 1986 and 2023, in English language peer-reviewed journals were eligible for inclusion. Further articles were identified through forward and backward citation tracking, and hand-searching the index lists of two key journals. Two authors screened the studies, extracted the data and collated study outcomes using a standardised software program. A meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate pooled effect sizes in prevalence rates and odds ratios (ORs). The socio-ecological model (SEM) was used as a framework to thematically analyse facilitators and barriers impacting participation in cervical screening.ResultsSixty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 42 reported on rates of cervical screening participation and 24 reported on facilitators or barriers to cervical screening for people with intellectual disability. Overall, the studies reported a screening prevalence of 35% (95% CI: 26% to 45%), indicating that just over a third of people with intellectual disability have had cervical screening. The pooled odds ratio of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.41) indicated that people with intellectual disability are significantly less likely to have a cervical screening test compared with people without intellectual disability. Most studies examined individual and interpersonal factors impacting cervical screening. These included: (i) fear and anxiety among people with intellectual disability, (ii) misassumptions preventing screening participation, (iii) the role of support people, (iv) the need for education, (v) accessible information, and time to prepare for screening, (vi) patient-provider communication including challenges obtaining informed consent, and (vii) healthcare provider lack of confidence.ConclusionFuture research, policy and practice efforts must address barriers to cervical screening participation among people with intellectual disability and ensure these efforts are co-produced and community-led. This is critical to ensuring equity in global and local efforts to eliminate cervical cancer