“Your double-blind RCT needs feminism”: an argument for engaging critical theory in quantitative rehabilitation research

References

• Ponterotto JG. Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J. Couns. Psychol. 2005;52(2):126–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sale JEM, Lohfeld LH, Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual Quant. 2002;36(1):43–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crotty M. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. 2nd ed. London (UK): Sage Publications; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber SN. Feminist research: exploring, interrogating, and transforming the interconnections of epistemology, methodology, and method. In: Handbook of feminist research: theory and Praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014. p. 2–26. DOI:10.4135/9781483384740
   Google Scholar
• Brown LA, Strega S. Research as resistance: revisiting critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches, 2nd ed. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Collins PH. What’s critical about critical social theory? Durham: Duke University Press; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Aranda K, editor. Critical qualitative health research: exploring philosophies, politics and practices. London: Routledge; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Tuhiwai Smith L, editors. Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Los Angeles (CA): Sage Publications; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens. New York (NY): Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: revisiting the foundations. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(7):976–993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber SN. Feminist research: exploring, interrogating, and transforming the interconnections of epistemology, methodology, and method. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research:theory and praxis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014. p. 2–26.
   Google Scholar
• Crotty M. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Kincheloe JL, McLaren P. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Hayes K, Steinerg SR, Tobin K, editors. Key works in critical pedagogy. Leiden: Brill; 2011. p. 285–326.
   Google Scholar
• Setchell J, Nicholls DA, Wilson N, et al. Infusing rehabilitation with critical research and scholarship: a call to action. Physiother. Canada. 2018;70(4):301–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Theoretical models of disability. Perspectives on disability & rehabilitatio contesting assumptions, challenging practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2006. p. 54–70.
   Google Scholar
• O’Dell L, Bertilsdotter Rosqvist H, Ortega F, et al. Critical autism studies: exploring epistemic dialogues and intersections, challenging dominant understandings of autism. Disabil Soc. 2016;31:166–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertilsdotter Rosqvist H, Kourti M, Jackson-Perry D, et al. Doing it differently: emancipatory autism studies within a neurodiverse academic space. Disabil. Soc. 2019;34(7–8):1082–1101.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkesworth M. Truth and truths in feminist knowledge production. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014. p. 92–118.
   Google Scholar
• Rosser SV. The link between feminist theory and methods in experimental research. In Hesse-Biber S, editor. Handbook of feminist research:theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Harding S. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Alcoff L, Potter E, editors. Fem. Epistemol. New York: Routledge; 1993. p. 49–82.
   Google Scholar
• Harding S. Strong objectivity”: a response to the new objectivity question. Synthese. 1995;104(3):331–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding S. Stronger objectivity for sciences from Below. Object. Divers. 2015;2015:1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Transgender JK. Transsexualism, and the queering of gender identities: debates for feminist research. In Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research:theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hundleby CE. Feminist empiricism. In: Hesse-Biber S, editor. Handbook of feminist research:theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Martin J. Feminist theory and critical theory: unexplored synergies. In Alvesson M, Willmott H, editors. Studies Managing Critical. London: Sage Publications; 2003. p. 66–91.
   Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Harding S, Norberg K. New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: an introduction. Signs J Women Cult Soc. 2005;30(4):2009–2015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stage FK. Answering critical questions using quantitative data. New Dir Institutional Res. 2007;2007(133):5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer GR. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:10–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowleg L, Bauer G. Invited reflection: quantifying intersectionality. Psychol. Women Q. 2016;40(3):337–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer GR. Quantitative intersectional study design and primary data collection [Internet]. Ottawa (ON); 2021. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52352.html
   Google Scholar
• Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 1991;43(6):1241–1299.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock AM. When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspect. Polit. 2007;5:63–79.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman J, Mackenzie FJ. The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard? Perspect. Perspect Biol Med. 2005;48(4):516–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12(1):77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Sadle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, et al. Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence (Background Document). 2011. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/explanation-2011-ocebm-levels-evidence/
   Google Scholar
• Burke NJ, Joseph G, Pasick RJ, et al. Theorizing social context: rethinking behavioral theory nancy. Heal Educ Behav. 2009;36:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Hurley RW, Adams MCB. Sex, gender, and pain: an overview of a complex field. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(1):309–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittle KL, Inhorn MC. Rethinking difference: a feminist reframing of gender/race/class for the improvement of women’s health research. Int J Health Serv. 2001;31(1):147–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mogil JS, Chanda ML. The case for the inclusion of female subjects in basic science studies of pain. Pain. 2005;117(1–2):1–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mogil JS. Perspective: equality need not be painful. Nature. 2016;535(7611):S7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dance A. Why the sexes don’t feel pain the same way. Nature. 2019;567(7749):448–450.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michnovicz JJ, Bradlow HL. Induction of estradiol metabolism by dietary indole-3-carbinol in humans. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990;82(11):947–949.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu KA, Dipietro Mager NA. Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications. Pharm Pract. 2016;14(1):708.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim ESH, Menon V. Status of women in cardiovascular clinical trials. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29(3):279–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schonfeld RC, Sweeney L. Inclusion diversity, and equity: members of the association of research libraries employee demographics and director perspectives. 2017. Available from: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/95117/LibrariesInclusionDiversityEquity.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Slade T, Gross DP, Niwa L, et al. Sex and gender demographic questions: improving methodological quality, inclusivity, and ethical administration. Int J Soc Res Method. 2020;2020:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Mena E, Bolte G. Intersectionality-based quantitative health research and sex/gender sensitivity: a scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker KE, Streed CG, Durso LE. Ensuring that LGBTQI + people count — collecting data on sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(13):1184–1184.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL. Updated updated guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2021;326(7):621–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichler M. Feminist methodology. Curr Sociol. 1997;45(2):9–36.
   Google Scholar
• Gannon S, Davies B. Postmodern, poststructural, and critical theories. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research:theory and praxis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2007. p. 74–106.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research. Int J Equity Health. 2009;8:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan R, George A, Ssali S, et al. How to do (or not to do)… gender analysis in health systems research. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(8):1069–1078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinsella EA, Whiteford GE. Knowledge generation and utilisation in occupational therapy: towards epistemic reflexivity. Aust Occup Ther J. 2009;56(4):249–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelan SK. Constructions of disability: a call for critical reflexivity in occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 2011;78(3):164–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis LJ. Disability, normality, and power. In: Davis LJ, editor. Journal of disability policy studies. 5th ed. Winnipeg: Routledge; 2017. p. 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders P. Examining competing discourses of autism advocacy in the public sphere. J Lit Cult Disabil Stud. 2018;12(1):1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Lovaas OI. Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987;55(1):3–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapp SK, Steward R, Crane L, et al. 'People should be allowed to do what they like’: autistic adults’ views and experiences of stimming. Autism. 2019;23(7):1782–1792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akers JS, Davis TN, Gerow S, et al. Decreasing motor stereotypy in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2020;77:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Wood R. Autism, intense interests and support in school: from wasted efforts to shared understandings. Educ. Rev. 2019;73:1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Virués-Ortega J. Applied behavior analytic intervention for autism in early childhood: meta-analysis, meta-regression and dose-response Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(4):387–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Welcome to the autistic community! Washington (DC): The Autistic Press; 2020. Available from: http://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WTTAC-Adult-FINAL-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Milton D. So what exactly are autism interventions intervening with? Good Autism Pract. 2014;15:6–14.
   Google Scholar
• Kupferstein H. Evidence of increased PTSD symptoms in autistics exposed to applied behavior analysis. Adv Autism. 2018;4(1):19–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson RB, Schoonenboom J. Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: interacting with differences. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):587–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber S. Weaving a multimethodology and mixed methods praxis into randomized control trials to enhance credibility. Qual Inq. 2012;18(10):876–889.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottema-Beutel K, Crowley S, Sandbank M, et al. Research review: conflicts of interest (COIs) in autism early intervention research – a meta-analysis of COI influences on intervention effects. J. Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2020;2020:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson M, Fletcher-Watson, S. Commentary: What conflicts of interest tell us about autism intervention research—a commentary on Bottema-Beutel et al. (2020). J Child Psychol. Psychiatr. 2021;62(1):16–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists Code of Ethics. 2018. Available from: https://caot.ca/uploaded/web/CodeofEthics2007-Revised 2018_V.3(002).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Speech-Language and Audiology Canada. Speech-Language and Audiology Canada Code of Ethics. Available from: https://www.sac-oac.ca/sites/default/files/resources/2016_sac_Code_of_Ethics_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Physiotherapy Association. Canadian physiotherapy association code of ethical conduct. 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 7]. Available from: https://physiotherapy.ca/sites/default/files/code-of-conduct-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pellicano E, Dinsmore A, Charman T. Views on researcher-community engagement in autism research in the United Kingdom: a mixed-methods study. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109946–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollin G, Pearce W. Autism scientists’ reflections on the opportunities and challenges of public engagement: a qualitative analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019;49(3):809–818.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Milton DEM. On the ontological status of autism: the “double empathy problem. Disabil. Soc. 2012;27(6):883–887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker K. Community-based participatory research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, et al. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis C, Raymaker D, Kapp SK, et al. The AASPIRE practice-based guidelines for the inclusion of autistic adults in research as co-researchers and study participants. Autism. 2019;23(8):2007–2013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahan A, Ellibidy A. A review of conceptual models for rehabilitation research and practice. Rehabil Sci. 2017;2:46–53. Available from: http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/rs
   Google Scholar
• Gibson BE. Rehabilitation: a post-critical approach. 1st ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Fuentes J, Armijo-Olivo S, Funabashi M, et al. Enhanced therapeutic alliance modulates pain intensity and muscle pain sensitivity in patients with chronic low back pain: an experimental controlled study. Phys Ther. 2014;94(4):477–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leplège A, Barral C, McPherson K. Conceptualizing disability to inform rehabilitation: Historical and epistemological perspectives. In: McPherson K, Gibson BE, Leplege A, editors. Rethinking rehabilitation: theory and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. p. 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Rethinking rehabilitation’s assumptions: challenging “thinking-as-Usual” and envisioning a relevant future. In: McPherson K, Gibson BE, Leplege A, editors. Rethinking rehabilitation: theory and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. p. 45–67.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour W. The body. Remaking the body: rehabilitation and change. London: Routledge; 1998. p. 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson B. Moving rehabilitation. rehabilitation. A post-critical approach. 1st ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2016. P. 20–45.
   Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(12):977–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CD. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(16):963–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betcher S. Putting my foot (prosthesis, crutches, phantom) down: considering technology as transcendence in the writings of Donna Haraway. Women’s Stud. Q. 2001;29:35–53.
   Google Scholar
• Hilyer B. Feminism and disability. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Phelan SK, Wright V, Gibson BE. Representations of disability and normality in rehabilitation technology promotional materials. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(24):2072–2079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. London (UK): University of Chicago Press; 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Yeo R, Moore K. Including disabled people in poverty reduction work: nothing about us, without us. World Dev. 2003;31(3):571–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristán JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;2013:13.
   Google Scholar
• Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roche P, Shimmin C, Hickes S, et al. Valuing all voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar