Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Chris Hatton: we have the evidence – let’s see action on doing research

We know people should be involved in research that affects them and studies show there’s no good reason to exclude them. So why aren’t those funding and organising research taking note?

Equality Act - Chapter 15

So far in this column, I’ve written about what recent research has to say about issues that are important for people with learning disabilities. But what about when these people are excluded from research altogether?

Being left out of research is a big problem – if you’re left out, then what study questions get asked, what research gets done and what comes out of this will not be designed with you in mind.

We have known for way too long that people with learning disabilities are more likely to have a great number of health problems from an earlier age than others but are less likely to get the health services they need, meaning that they are dying on average 20 years younger.

Designed out

The very language of the Equality Act 2010, which requires health organisations to make reasonable adjustments to their usual provision, shows that services are not routinely designed for people with learning disabilities.

We know that people with learning disabilities are excluded from health research.

In 2014, American professor Maurice Feldman and colleagues reviewed 300 clinical trials. They found only 2% of these studies clearly included people with learning disabilities, and more than 90% were designed in ways that would automatically exclude people with learning disabilities. The researcher estimated that at least 70% of the trials that had excluded people with learning disabilities could have included them with relatively small changes to how they did things.

In 2020, University of East Anglia researcher Samuel Spaul and colleagues reviewed over 25,000 research projects funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the major funder of health research in England. They found that 60% of projects excluded those with learning disabilities and/or autism.

Reasons for exclusion

Earlier this year, Ruth Bishop and her colleagues (including two self-advocacy groups) found that 78% of 180 NIHR research projects excluded people with learning disabilities.

They sent questionnaires to project researchers, who gave a wide range of reasons for not including them. These included:

  • Not having the resources and the funding needed to include people with learning disabilities
  • Many research teams having no one with any experience of working with people with learning disabilities, let alone having people with learning disabilities in the research team
  • Research ethics committees often demanding information sheets and consent forms that were overcomplicated and inaccessible, insisting on informed consent when getting assent was perfectly feasible, and insisting that people with learning disabilities should be excluded from research that discusses upsetting issues to protect them
  • The very design of research baking in exclusion, from using inaccessible methods to researchers arguing that the health intervention being tested would itself be inaccessible to people with learning disabilities.

Looking at these reasons given by project researchers, people in self-advocacy groups reflected that making research accessible to people with learning disabilities would also help a lot of other people to participate, and that research co-produced with people with learning disabilities would solve a lot of the problems.

Research by Dorothy Coe, Victoria Shepherd, Amy Russell (at Newcastle, Cardiff and Leeds universities respectively) and others reinforce these findings, giving ample evidence for how unwarranted this exclusion is and developing resources that researchers can use to make their work more inclusive.

To be fair to the NIHR, it has funded most of this research showing the exclusion of people with learning disabilities. The urgent question is when this will lead to the big changes needed in how the NIHR and other research funders, ethics committees, universities and health services operate.

There is no excuse.