Search

The present study aims to identify the most productive countries, journals, authors, institutions and the most used keywords in the field of special education during 2011-2020, based on the WoS database. The widespread effects of the papers and how they are related were analyzed with the bibliometric analysis method. The findings of the study showed that the USA is inarguably the most productive country, followed by England and Australia. On the other hand, there was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.929) between the number of papers published by countries and their h-index, a similar finding was also found to be present between the countries' h-index and GDP per capita (r = 0.790). Moreover, it was found that the journals with the highest quartile (Q1 and Q2) in the field of special education published significantly more papers than the journals with the lowest quartile (Q3 and Q4). Matson, JL (USA), Sigafoos, J (New Zealand) and Lancioni, GE (Italy) were determined as the most prolific authors, respectively. Autism, intellectual disability, and Down syndrome were the phrases most frequently used as keywords. Our findings provide key information regarding the developments that the research direction of special education field has recently taken. This study also serves a potential roadmap for future studies.

The aim of this study is to identify the most prolific countries in the field of special education and to discuss the widespread impact of their papers by taking into account the country's h-index. Through a bibliometric analysis, the data were collected in the Web of Science Core Collection category "Education, Special" in the Social Science Citation Index during 2011-2020. The 25 most prolific countries in the field of special education were determined in terms of paper productivity, and it was seen that the leading country was undisputedly the USA (54.42%). Meanwhile, a strong positive correlation was found between the h-index and the number of papers published by the countries (r=0.864). On the other hand, when the ranking in terms of the number of papers was reconfigured by the h-index, it was relatively changed. The possible reasons for this change for the countries with the most changing rankings were discussed by considering some definitive criteria such as the journal quartiles, the percentage of international and domestic, and the percentage of open access papers. This study reports a positive correlation between the quality and quantity in the field of special education for the publications of countries. It has been shown that where the positive correlation deviates, then especially, the journal quartiles, the percentage of international collaboration and the percentage of open access papers have a significant effect. The bibliometric findings may be useful to enrich the discussion about the widespread impact of papers and debate whether the use of h-index is acceptable for cross-national comparisons.

Background: To summarise the evidentiary basis related to causes of inequities in chronic kidney disease among Indigenous Peoples.Methods: We conducted a Kaupapa Māori meta-synthesis evaluating the epidemiology of chronic kidney diseases in Indigenous Peoples. Systematic searching of MEDLINE, Google Scholar, OVID Nursing, CENTRAL and Embase was conducted to 31 December 2019. Eligible studies were quantitative analyses (case series, case-control, cross-sectional or cohort study) including the following Indigenous Peoples: Māori, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, Métis, First Nations Peoples of Canada, First Nations Peoples of the United States of America, Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan. In the first cycle of coding, a descriptive synthesis of the study research aims, methods and outcomes was used to categorise findings inductively based on similarity in meaning using the David R Williams framework headings and subheadings. In the second cycle of analysis, the numbers of studies contributing to each category were summarised by frequency analysis. Completeness of reporting related to health research involving Indigenous Peoples was evaluated using the CONSIDER checklist.Results: Four thousand three hundred seventy-two unique study reports were screened and 180 studies proved eligible. The key finding was that epidemiological investigators most frequently reported biological processes of chronic kidney disease, particularly type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease as the principal causes of inequities in the burden of chronic kidney disease for colonised Indigenous Peoples. Social and basic causes of unequal health including the influences of economic, political and legal structures on chronic kidney disease burden were infrequently reported or absent in existing literature.Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-synthesis, a Kaupapa Māori methodology and the David R Williams framework was used to evaluate reported causes of health differences in chronic kidney disease in Indigenous Peoples. Current epidemiological practice is focussed on biological processes and surface causes of inequity, with limited reporting of the basic and social causes of disparities such as racism, economic and political/legal structures and socioeconomic status as sources of inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]