Supported employment for people with developmental disabilities during COVID: A scoping review
Creators: name: Graham, James
name: Persch, Andrew
name: Mutrik Alajmi
Publisher: name: OSF Registries
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
subject: Education
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: COVID-19
subject: Developmental Disabilities
subject: Supported Employment
subject: Technology
subject: Universal Design

description: Methods

This scoping review is guided by the protocol framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and is comprised of five phases. First, determining the research question sets the direction of the study (Arksey &amp; O'Malley, 2005). After that, Stage 2 entails a thorough review to find relevant research. Step 3 involves a meticulous selection of studies in line with the research goals. The organization and structuring of data taken from selected studies is the main goal of stage four. Last but not least, Stage 5 comprises compiling, analyzing, and presenting the findings in order to transform the data into insightful understandings (Arksey &amp; O'Malley, 2005). Together, this protocol provides a thorough framework for carrying out an organized and reliable research study. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist in reporting. The study does not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval since it is a scoping review.

Identifying the research question

The research question was built in PICO format. The populations of interest include: intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), Down Syndrome, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Cerebral Palsy, learning disability, Dyslexia, and Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The intervention under scrutiny is supported employment, explored in the context the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome is the employment status of these individuals. Combining these components enabled creation of the initial search strategy, designed to answer our research question.

Identifying relevant studies

The literature search was conducted across four databases between December 2019 and November 2023 through EBSCO host: Medline, CINHAL, ERIC, and Web of Science. The search strategy was developed to capture the key components in the primary research question and with the rigor and specificity necessary for a PRISMA Systematic Review. The Boolean Operator OR was used to combine terms within each component and the Boolean Operator AND was used to combine components. Initial results were quite limited.. Therefore, due to the abundance of overlapping synonyms among the key terms related to population, interventions, and outcome, they were first combined using "OR" and then further refined by incorporating context using "AND." Keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) related to the PICO question were used to compose the final search strategy: ((MH “Employment, Supported”) OR (MH “Rehabilitation, Vocational”) OR (MH “Employment”) OR (MH “Unemployment”) OR (“job development”) OR (“disability employment”) OR (MH “Return to Work”) OR (“job coaching”) OR (“employment services”) OR (employment support”) OR (“job placement”) OR (“community rehabilitation provider”) OR (“competitive integrated employment”) OR (“customized employment”) OR (MH “Communication Aids for Disabled”) OR (MH “Equipment and Supplies”) OR (MH “Telerehabilitation”) OR (MH “Remote Consultation”) OR (MH “Personnel Management”) OR (MH “Telemedicine”)) AND ((MH “Coronavirus Infections”) OR (MH “COVID-19”) OR (MH “pandemics”) OR (MH “SARS-CoV-2") OR (“COVID”)).

Study selection

The inclusion criteria for participants encompass individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD), Down Syndrome, Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Learning Disability, Dyslexia, and ADHD. The study focuses on a broad age range, including individuals between the ages of 14 to 65. Additionally, only articles published in English are considered for inclusion in the review. The temporal scope of the study is limited to articles published from December 2019 to November 2023 considering COVID-19 focus. To maintain the specificity the following exclusion criteria was used. Firstly, research conducted outside the United States is excluded from consideration, ensuring a focus on the American context. Additionally, studies that do not specifically address supported employment are excluded. The scope is further refined by excluding research that focuses solely on physical disabilities or mental illnesses. Moreover, the exclusion of studies involving children aligns with the intended focus on the working population (ages 14 to 65). Finally, studies not related to the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including those addressing Long COVID or H1N1, were excluded.

In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence software (CITE) and screened for inclusion based on their title and abstract. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the reviewers to reach consensus. Next, the reviewers conducted independent hand searches to identify additional records, reviewed their eligibility, and met to establish consensus. Prior to formal data extraction, the extraction tool was piloted on a subset of included studies to ensure consistency and reliability in data extraction procedures. Data were extracted from the full text of each included study.

Charting the data

Data from the selected studies were charted using a spreadsheet adapted for this study. The subsequent crucial elements were extracted from each study: The author and year of publication, the study design, and the study characteristics (population, sample size, gender, race, age, exclusion/inclusion criteria, outcome measures), and main findings and analysis. The information extracted from the included studies was checked for accuracy and completeness by the second author.

Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

In accordance with Arksey and O'Malley (2005), a basic descriptive analysis of the studies was conducted first. Next, an analytic framework was employed to present a thematic narrative of the included studies (Arksey &amp; O'Malley, 2005). Applying a consistent approach in summarizing and reporting the results helped in drawing conclusions from the reviewed studies, which might be difficult sometimes due to the differences between studies in designs and theoretical perspectives (Arksey &amp; O'Malley, 2005).