Inclusive Futures, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
The Hopkins Centre, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Disabil Rehabil. 2024 Nov;46(23):5404-5414. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2024.2302582. Epub 2024 Jan 24.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本范围界定文献综述旨在确定残疾相关尊严的定义。它还考察了包容性研究方法在制定工作定义方面的应用程度。
采用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的改良框架,在五个电子数据库中进行了全面检索。采用叙述性综合和定性内容分析来检查尊严的定义和包容性研究方法的使用。
共纳入 22 项同行评议研究。大多数研究为定性研究(72.72%),并在不同环境中研究了各种残疾人群。尽管 19 项研究提供了尊严的定义,但没有明确的共识。尊严经常从功利主义的角度来定义,强调赋权和障碍。然而,对理论结构的探讨是肤浅和有限的。此外,没有研究提到包容性研究方法的使用。
包容性研究方法的缺乏阻碍了全面定义尊严的制定,该定义被残疾人士接受并与他们相关。从尊严的理论和实证角度出发,对于制定有意义和包容性的定义至关重要,这可以为不同环境和背景下增强残疾人士尊严的干预措施和政策提供信息。