Functioning and disability
An evidence map
Summary
A comprehensive litterature research resulted in 19 234 articles. In the first stage, these articles abstract were reviewed and 2 031 of them were considered as relevant. After full text review, 1 750 articles out of 2 031 were considered to be irrelevant. In total, SBU has identified 281 relevant systematic literature reviews. 232 of these were assessed to have low methodological quality, 44 medium high and 5 high methodological quality.
Most of the total of 49 systematic reviews with medium or high methodological quality concerned the groups of neuropsychiatric disabilities (24 systematic reviews), and next of kin or other close relatives of persons with disabilities (21 systematic reviews). This is followed by intellectual disabilities (11 systematic reviews) and mental disabilities (8 systematic reviews). For the group of physical disabilities, there are fewer systematic reviews with medium or high methodological quality (5 systematic reviews). No systematic reviews of medium or high methodological quality were identified regarding the group’s dyslexia, dyscalculia, language impairment, multifunctional impairment and sensory impairment
Systematic reviews that were identified and assessed as relevant, and of medium or high methodological quality, were distributed in relation to domains. It was then assessed whether there was scientific knowledge or scientific knowledge gaps in the domain. The assessment of whether there is scientific knowledge, or a scientific knowledge gap was made for the group of persons with disabilities.
Scientific knowledge was identified for the group:
- Neuropsychiatric disability in 8 of 17 domains.
- Mental impairment in 4 of 17 domains.
- Intellectual disability in 4 of 17 domains.
- Physical disability in 2 of 17 domains.
Scientific knowledge gaps were identified for the group:
- Mental disability in 13 of 17 domains.
- Neuropsychiatric disability in 9 of 17 domains.
- Intellectual disability within 13 of 17 domains.
- Physical disability in 15 of 17 domains.
Since there were no systematic reviews of medium or high quality in any of the domains for the groups of sensory impairment, dyslexia, dyscalculia, language impairment, and multifunctional impairment, there are, according to SBU:s definition, scientific knowledge gaps in all 17 domains.
The domains where most scientific knowledge gaps were found for most disability groups were:
- Autonomy-related interventions
- Housing-related interventions
- Interventions that promote parental ability
- Motivation oriented interventions
- Transport related interventions
Summary
A comprehensive litterature research resulted in 19 234 articles. In the first stage, these articles abstract were reviewed and 2 031 of them were considered as relevant. After full text review, 1 750 articles out of 2 031 were considered to be irrelevant. In total, SBU has identified 281 relevant systematic literature reviews. 232 of these were assessed to have low methodological quality, 44 medium high and 5 high methodological quality.
Most of the total of 49 systematic reviews with medium or high methodological quality concerned the groups of neuropsychiatric disabilities (24 systematic reviews), and next of kin or other close relatives of persons with disabilities (21 systematic reviews). This is followed by intellectual disabilities (11 systematic reviews) and mental disabilities (8 systematic reviews). For the group of physical disabilities, there are fewer systematic reviews with medium or high methodological quality (5 systematic reviews). No systematic reviews of medium or high methodological quality were identified regarding the group’s dyslexia, dyscalculia, language impairment, multifunctional impairment and sensory impairment
Systematic reviews that were identified and assessed as relevant, and of medium or high methodological quality, were distributed in relation to domains. It was then assessed whether there was scientific knowledge or scientific knowledge gaps in the domain. The assessment of whether there is scientific knowledge, or a scientific knowledge gap was made for the group of persons with disabilities.
Scientific knowledge was identified for the group:
- Neuropsychiatric disability in 8 of 17 domains.
- Mental impairment in 4 of 17 domains.
- Intellectual disability in 4 of 17 domains.
- Physical disability in 2 of 17 domains.
Scientific knowledge gaps were identified for the group:
- Mental disability in 13 of 17 domains.
- Neuropsychiatric disability in 9 of 17 domains.
- Intellectual disability within 13 of 17 domains.
- Physical disability in 15 of 17 domains.
Since there were no systematic reviews of medium or high quality in any of the domains for the groups of sensory impairment, dyslexia, dyscalculia, language impairment, and multifunctional impairment, there are, according to SBU:s definition, scientific knowledge gaps in all 17 domains.
The domains where most scientific knowledge gaps were found for most disability groups were:
- Autonomy-related interventions
- Housing-related interventions
- Interventions that promote parental ability
- Motivation oriented interventions
- Transport related interventions