Project description:BackgroundThe world is facing an unprecedented systemic shock to population health, the economy and society due to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As with most economic shocks, this is expected to disproportionately impact vulnerable groups in society such as those in poverty and those in precarious employment as well as marginalised groups such as women, the elderly, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and those with health conditions. The current literature is rich in normative recommendations on plural ownership as a key building block of an inclusive economy rooted in communities and their needs. There is, however, a need for a rigorous synthesis of the available evidence on what impact (if any) plural ownership may potentially have on the inclusivity of the economy. This review seeks to synthesise and compare the available evidence across the three economic sectors (private, public and third).MethodsWe will search eight bibliographic databases (Sociological abstracts, EBSCO Econlit, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), ProQuest Public Health, Web of Science, Research Papers in Economics (Repec) - EconPapers) from the earliest data available in each database until January 2021. Grey literature will be identified from Google (advanced), Google Scholar and 37 organisational websites identified as relevant to the research question. We will include comparative studies of plural ownership from high-income countries that report outcomes on access to opportunities, distribution of benefits, poverty, and discrimination. A bespoke search strategy will be used for each website to account for the heterogeneity in content and search capabilities and will be fully documented. A standardised data extraction template based on the Population-Intervention-Context-Outcome (PICO) template will be developed. We will assess the strength of evidence for different forms of economic ownership identified in relation to the impact of each on the four economic outcomes of interest, paying particular attention to the role of wider contextual factors as they emerge through the evidence.DiscussionThe findings of this review are intended to inform policymaking at local, national and international level that prioritises and supports the development of different economic and business models.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BYH5A.
Project description:Countries increasingly compete to attract and retain human capital. However, empirical studies, particularly those of migrants moving back to developing countries, have been limited due to the lack of education-specific migration flow data. Drawing on census microdata from IPUMS, we derive flow data by level of education and age group to quantify the level of return migration and examine the educational and age profile of return migrants for a global sample of 60 countries representing 70% of the world population. We show that return migrants account for a significant share of in-migration flows, particularly in Africa and Latin America, and, in all countries but six, return migrants are more educated than the population in the migrants' country of birth. Our age decomposition reveals that young adults contribute the most to the positive educational selectivity of return migrants, particularly in Africa and Asia. While this paper does not quantify the net effect of return migration on education levels, it underlines the importance of the human capital contributions of young adult returnees.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11113-021-09655-6.
Project description:The STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) potential of youth with cognitive disabilities is often dismissed through problematic perceptions of STEM ability as natural and of youth with cognitive disabilities as unable. National data on more than 15,000 adolescents from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 first suggest that, among youth with disabilities, youth with medicated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have the highest levels of STEM achievement, and youth with learning or intellectual disabilities typically have the lowest. Undergraduates with medicated ADHD or autism appear to be more likely to major in STEM than youth without cognitive disabilities, and youth with autism have the most positive STEM attitudes. Finally, results suggest that high school STEM achievement is more salient for college enrollment than STEM-positive attitudes across youth with most disability types, whereas attitudes are more salient than achievement for choosing a STEM major.
Project description:People with disabilities face a number of barriers to accessing and participating in evidence-based health promotion programs offered within the community. To address these barriers, the program implementation process needs to integrate disability inclusion throughout planning and implementation. The National Center on Health, Physical Activity and Disability's inclusive Community Implementation Process (NiCIP) provides a framework for implementers to systematically integrate strategies into their health promotion programs that increase inclusion while maintaining the fidelity the program. The NiCIP is a community-engaged process that brings key stakeholders together to guide the selection and implementation of data-driven solutions that promote inclusion in, and access to, health promotion programs. In this article, we first provide an overview of the NiCIP. Then, we present a case study exploring one community's experience using the NiCIP to implement a disability inclusive nutrition program within their community.
Project description:Early and middle adolescents' judgments and reasonings about peers who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer group norms were examined across three studies with varying intergroup contexts. Study 1 participants included (N = 199) non-Arab American participants responding to an Arab American/non-Arab American intergroup context. Study 2 included (N = 123) non-Asian and (N = 105) Asian American participants responding to an Asian/non-Asian American intergroup context. Study 3 included (N = 275) Lebanese participants responding to an American/Lebanese intergroup context. Across all three studies participants responded to ingroup and outgroup deviant group members who challenged their peer groups to either include or exclude an outgroup peer with similar interests. Findings indicated that adolescents approved of peers who challenged exclusive peer norms and advocated for inclusion of an ethnic and cultural outgroup, and disapproved of peers who challenged inclusive group norms and advocated for exclusion. Non-Arab and non-Asian American adolescents displayed ingroup bias when evaluating a deviant advocating for exclusion. Additionally, age differences were found among Asian American adolescents. Findings will be discussed in light of intergroup research on those who challenge injustices.
Project description:Individuals with disabilities comprise one of the largest marginalized groups in the United States and experience systemic barriers in health care. In Westernized communities, disability has historically been conceptualized via the medical model, which considers disability an individual-level deficit in need of correction. Although other models of disability (e.g., social model) have been developed to address the medical model's ableist shortcomings, these fail to consistently acknowledge intersectionality. Specifically, these models fail to consider that (a) a disabled individual may hold other marginalized or oppressed identities and (b) these intersecting oppressions may exacerbate health inequities. Intersectionality, which originates from Black feminist literature, describes the ways that systems of power and oppression (e.g., racism, sexism) interact to form an individual's unique experience. To date, the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities has been neglected in psychology and related fields, leaving little guidance for how scholars, clinicians, and other stakeholders can address disability via an intersectional lens. The present article discusses how a disability-affirmative, intersectional approach can serve as a strategy for challenging and reforming oppressive systems across the field of psychology. We assert that, ultimately, this approach has the potential to optimize and expand access to equitable, inclusive mental health care, and we propose actionable steps psychologists can take in research, practice, training, and policy in pursuit of this aim. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Project description:The US Census Bureau has used the American Community Survey six-question set (ACS-6) to identify disabled people since 2008. In late 2023, the Census Bureau proposed changes to these questions that would have reduced disability prevalence estimates by 42%. Because these estimates inform funding and programs that support the health and independence of people with disabilities, many disability researchers and advocates feared this change in data collection would lead to reductions in funding and services. While the Census has paused-but not ruled out-the proposed changes, it is critical that alternate, more inclusive disability questions be identified and tested. We used data from the 2023/2024 National Survey on Health and Disability to explore alternative questions to identify disabled people in national surveys. A single broad question about conditions identified 11.2% more people with disabilities, and missed significantly fewer people with psychiatric disabilities compared to the current ACS-6 questions. A combination of a broad question and the existing ACS-6 questions may be necessary to more accurately and inclusively identify people with disabilities.
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has led many countries around the world to take drastic measures. Regardless of the epidemiological impact, it is undisputed that these measures have had significant negative effects on scholastic attainment, psychosocial and physical health of children and adolescents. Given their consequences, such interventions evoke the question of their ethical justifiability. This article introduces the most common ethical theories and, building on them, discusses the ethical evaluation of the COVID-19-related school closures.
Project description:Although school attainment is a cumulative process combining mastery of both academic and behavioral skills, most studies have offered only a piecemeal view of the associations between middle childhood capacities and subsequent schooling outcomes. Using a 20-year longitudinal dataset, this study estimates the association between children's academic skills, anti-social behaviors and attention problems, all averaged across middle childhood, and their long-term educational outcomes. After adjusting for family and individual background measures, we find that high average levels of math and reading achievement, and low average levels of anti-social behavior problems, are positively associated with later attainment. Associations between attention problems and attainment are small. Associations are attenuated somewhat when sibling differences in these skills and behaviors are related to sibling differences in attainment outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundEducational technology (EdTech) has been instrumental in the last few decades in promoting inclusive education by overcoming various learning barriers and offering tools and opportunities to all students, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). However, there is limited understanding of current classroom practices and policies and of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on EdTech use in the inclusive classroom.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to outline the current knowledge on the use of EdTech to support the learning of students with SEND in inclusive primary schools in high-income countries.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) and the Generalized Systematic Review Registration Form in reporting the details of this protocol. The inclusion criteria for the systematic review require that studies focus on students with SEND who are attending the primary stage of school in high-income countries. The studies can be qualitative or quantitative and should explore the design and use of EdTech with these students. Eligible studies must be published between 2016 and 2024, be peer-reviewed, and be available in English. We systematically searched the ACM, Directory of Open Access Journals, British Educational Index, ERIC, Google Scholar (first 100 records), IEEE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The titles and abstracts of all records will be screened for relevance according to the inclusion criteria. Following this, the full text of the articles will be screened. To ensure the reliability of the screening process, an independent reviewer will screen a percentage of the records for the first screening round. The data extraction process for this systematic review will start with a pilot stage to validate and eventually update the list of entities to be extracted. Following the pilot stage, the final data extraction will be undertaken. An independent reviewer will extract data from a subsample of the records to ensure the reliability of the data extraction process.ResultsThe database search was conducted in July 2024. The database search identified a total of 547 records. It is anticipated that the study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of January 2025.ConclusionsThis study will provide up-to-date evidence of the use of EdTech in inclusive primary school settings in high-income countries and will describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of EdTech with students with SEND.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/65045.