Search

Purpose: 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. Materials and Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The adoption of inclusive research methods in disability research should be a priority for rehabilitation researchers and clinicians to better shape research agendas, study design, and outcomes. 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 The findings emphasise the need to address dignity concerns within healthcare settings for people with disability. Rehabilitation practitioners can advocate for person-centered approaches, improved communication and increased accessibility to create dignified healthcare environments. Rehabilitation researchers and practitioners can play a pivotal role in advocating for social justice and equity by supporting policies and interventions that foster inclusive practices, dignity, and equitable opportunities for people with disability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exploring the intricate relationship between individual and collective experiences, this study explores dignity from the perspectives of people with disability. Using an extreme citizen science approach, we engaged people with disability as active partners in gathering data through qualitative surveys and focus groups. Framework Analysis was employed to ensure the validity of findings while privileging the voices of people with lived experience of disability. Dignity was contingent on the acknowledgement of personhood and the delivery of human rights. Our research identified five key aspects to maintain and protect dignity: (1) acknowledging personhood; (2) recognising people with disability as decision-makers of their lives; (3) realising the right to access information; (4) maintaining the right to privacy; and (5) eliminating or minimising barriers to accessibility and inclusion. Undignified experiences that resulted from a lack of acknowledgement negatively affected participants' wellbeing, and healthcare settings were identified as particularly challenging environments for dignity. These findings have significant implications for healthcare systems and services within an international and interdisciplinary context. They emphasise the need for adaptable, flexible services, co-designed with people with lived experience of disability. Addressing organisational constraints, resource limitations, and expectations is paramount to ensuring dignity is maintained through the acknowledgement of personhood and safeguarding of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study is to objectively quantify the degree of overcorrection in our current practice and to evaluate longitudinal morphological changes using CranioRate TM , a novel machine learning skull morphology assessment tool.  ., Design: Retrospective cohort study across multiple time points., Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital., Patients: Patients with preoperative and postoperative CT scans who underwent fronto-orbital advancement (FOA) for metopic craniosynostosis., Main Outcome Measures: We evaluated preoperative, postoperative, and two-year follow-up skull morphology using CranioRate TM to generate a Metopic Severity Score (MSS), a measure of degree of metopic dysmorphology, and Cranial Morphology Deviation (CMD) score, a measure of deviation from normal skull morphology., Results: Fifty-five patients were included, average age at surgery was 1.3 years. Sixteen patients underwent follow-up CT imaging at an average of 3.1 years. Preoperative MSS was 6.3 ± 2.5 (CMD 199.0 ± 39.1), immediate postoperative MSS was -2.0 ± 1.9 (CMD 208.0 ± 27.1), and longitudinal MSS was 1.3 ± 1.1 (CMD 179.8 ± 28.1). MSS approached normal at two-year follow-up (defined as MSS = 0). There was a significant relationship between preoperative MSS and follow-up MSS (R 2  = 0.70)., Conclusions: MSS quantifies overcorrection and normalization of head shape, as patients with negative values were less "metopic" than normal postoperatively and approached 0 at 2-year follow-up. CMD worsened postoperatively due to postoperative bony changes associated with surgical displacements following FOA. All patients had similar postoperative metopic dysmorphology, with no significant association with preoperative severity. More severe patients had worse longitudinal dysmorphology, reinforcing that regression to the metopic shape is a postoperative risk which increases with preoperative severity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.