*Corresponding author:Burke EA, Trinity Center for Ageing and Intellectual Disability, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin,
The University of Dublin, Dublin 2
How to cite this article: Burke E, Dennehy H, Bakker A, Bowman S, Murphy E, et al. The Methodological Approach to the Co-Creation of Online Health
Education with and for Individuals with Intellectual Disability. Glob J Intellect Dev Disabil, 2021; 7(5): 555725. DOI: 10.19080/GJIDD.2021.07.555725
Background: Health inequalities are evident among adults with intellectual disability. Two large national longitudinal studies have
highlighted the paucity of health education among people with intellectual disability. Frequently people with intellectual disability are excluded
from health screenings, targeted health promotions and health education. Subsequently health problems often go unrecognised and unmet.
Aims: Through co-creation and collaboration, the aim of this project was to develop, refine and validate resources to deliver health education
on a novel digital platform in an accessible easy-read manner. The aim of this paper is to describe how the project engaged individuals online to
co-create this educational offering.
Methods: This is a collaborative project between Ireland and the Netherlands. The project adopts a strengths-based approach and the
design adopted is citizen co-creation to promote citizen engagement and involvement in the development of this novel online programme.
Individuals with intellectual disability, their carers and researchers worked in partnership to develop content, and co-design the platform. This
was enabled by building familiarisation with online engagement with individuals with intellectual disability, designing and developing easy-read
accessible materials and through the implementation of a robust consistent approach in both countries.
Results: With the appropriate supports in place individuals with intellectual disability were capable of engaging productively and
successfully with online interviewing. Many participants had experience using the internet however for many this was their first time engaging
online in such a process. In total 37 participants successfully completed the online interviews and pilot-testing, contributing to the development
of the content and digital education platform.
Conclusion: The digital platform supports individuals with intellectual disability to be better prepared for engaging with healthcare
professionals. The aims are increased confidence, and better understanding of what one can do to look after one’s health. The process for
developing the co-created materials identifies three critical areas for a successful project or programme: 1) establishing or utilizing relationships
where a high degree of trust is in place; 2) assessing technology access and literacy levels across platforms; 3) providing skills training or other
support to ensure contributors are actively and meaningfully involved across the project’s lifecycle; and 4) ensuring feedback is acknowledged
and used in the co-creation of both process and summative deliverables.
Keywords: Accessibility; Co-creation; Digital platform; Health education; Intellectual disability; Online learning; Internet usage
People with intellectual disability are living longer however
continue to experience significant health disparities and earlier
mortality than their peers in the general population [1,2].
Contributing factors to this include: a predisposition to chronic health conditions; diagnostic overshadowing; limited access to
targeted health promotions and inaccessible health information
[3,4]. Overall people with intellectual disability access healthcare
at higher levels than the general population, however despite this,
greater levels of chronic health and multimorbidity persist [5-7].
Rates of chronic disease are overall higher for individuals with
intellectual disability in comparison to the general population
[4,8]. One condition that is highly prevalent within this population
is osteoporosis [9-11]. Research has sought to explore and
understand the prevalence for poor bone health among people
with an intellectual disability and prevalence rates of over 70%
have been identified . Research has also highlighted the low
levels of doctor’s diagnosis of osteoporosis among older adults
with intellectual disability, despite reported high prevalence
of risk factors, which greatly impacts health outcomes .
Compounding these health disparities and difficulties are high
rates of illiteracy and communication challenges .
Global health policies advocate for citizen responsibility for
their health and advance a vision of creating an environment
where individuals are valued and enjoy health and wellbeing as
they age [15,16]. This is challenging for people with intellectual
disability considering the high rates of illiteracy, diverse cognitive
limitations, as well as reported anxiety and difficulty when
communicating with healthcare professionals. Currently, there
are no nation-wide health promotional campaign activities
specifically designed or targeting people with intellectual
disability, further impacting negatively on their health experience.
In addition, health educational programmes for people with
intellectual disability do not always address the health disparities
actually experienced by people with intellectual disability
. Furthermore, when access to healthcare programmes is
considered it is often the physical access that comes to mind;
however, for people with intellectual disability access is far
more complex. Education, healthcare information and health
promotion materials that are easy read, accessible must be built
in partnership with individuals with intellectual disability is what
is required. All too frequently programmes are developed without
the input of individuals with intellectual disability and healthcare
staff lack the ability to stimulate involvement . There is often a
lack of evidence about specific and broad health needs for people
with intellectual disability , and subsequently those developing
guidelines to improve health for all, can unintentionally increase
health inequalities for people with intellectual disability due to the
lack of their engagement and involvement . Additionally, there
is limited evidence on the use or uptake of e-health technology
among ageing adults with intellectual disability, and as a result,
research has recognised the need for the development of e-health
interventions for older adults with intellectual disability .
Targeted health interventions are essential for adults ageing with
intellectual disability, to improve health and well-being outcomes,
as well as their knowledge so as to be empowered to engage in
meaningful self-care and skill-development opportunities.
Recognising these deficiencies and in alignment with the
principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(Goals 4, 8, 10 and 17)  as well as United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2005), which
advocate education for all citizens, the ‘Get Wise about your
health’ project has been co-created and co-developed with people
with intellectual disability and their carers. The principle aims of
the project being to address significant health issues by providing
accessible health education for people with intellectual disability.
Embedded in an emancipatory philosophy for conducting
research and from previous experience , empowering
individuals with opportunity to engage yields meaningful results.
Get Wise about your health, is a European project funded by EIT
Health, and is a partnership between Trinity College Dublin and
Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam. The project
offers excellence in best practice health promotion education
for people with intellectual disability, encapsulating citizen
involvement and building on the strengths of the core partners.
Providing accessible health education promotes health awareness
and ultimately improved health outcomes for individuals with
intellectual disability . The aim of this paper is to describe
the methodological aspects of developing the project and how the
team engaged and involved individuals online to co-create the Get
Wise educational offering.
The aim of ‘Get Wise about your health’ was to develop, refine
and validate a health education programme in collaboration with
individuals with intellectual disability in an accessible, easy to
read manner on a novel digital platform. The objective was to
address and improve individual’s health knowledge to empower
the individual to become an informed consumer of health.
The project was initially designed to engage individuals in a
face-to-face manner, however, due to the emergence of COVID19
the engagement model changed to a totally online experience.
Get Wise stayed true to its philosophy of emancipatory research
employing a strengths-based approach in the design of the project,
whereby individuals with intellectual disability, their carers and
researchers worked in partnership to develop content, contribute,
and refine materials and validate resources through the following
1. Building familiarisation with online engagement,
2. Designing and developing easy-read accessible
3. Co-creation, review and validation of all modules and
4. Co-creating the accessible educational online platform.
The team encouraged familiarisation through the recruitment
process, building connections and support for individuals
through the services networks to enable online engagement.
Consistent with European guidelines, easy read information was
developed , reviewed by individuals and finalised to support
understanding and the roll out of the project. The educational
online platform and all easy read material were developed in
collaboration with adults with intellectual disability. To inform the
content the project adopted a qualitative approach through semistructured
interviews using an online questionnaire with openended
questions addressing going to the doctor and bone health.
To ascertain the participants’ online engagement, individuals
were also asked about their experience using technology; they
were asked if they had devices and what they used them for, if they
had access to the internet, and if they needed support to facilitate
access and involvement. Once the information from the online
interviews had been collated, this informed both the supports
required to facilitate ongoing engagement and the development
of the content within the modules of the online accessible health
education programme. A separate group of participants were
invited to participate in a pilot study once the platform had been
developed, to test the level of accessibility of the programme,
the user friendliness of the platform and the feasibility of the
tools developed. This allowed for reasonable adjustments and
amendments to be applied to the platform.
The population includes adults with mild and moderate
intellectual disability. Participants were recruited from
existing client panels and those specifically linked to the larger
longitudinal studies in both Ireland and the Netherlands, IDSTILDA
(The Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish
Longitudinal Study on Ageing) and HA-ID (Healthy Aging and
Intellectual Disabilities). Client panels were approached through
established contacts from the TCAID (Trinity Centre for Ageing
and Intellectual Disability) academic collaborative centre and the
HA-ID consortium, to establish if they had individuals who were
in good health in light of the current circumstances (COVID19
pandemic), and if they would like to participate in the project.
The project recruited 20 participants for online interviews
and an additional 17 participants for pilot-testing across both
countries. The team also engaged with five general practitioners
in Ireland and the Netherlands to enrich the data collected from
people with intellectual disability, and further support the content
development of the Get Wise course modules.
Recruitment for the project began in April 2020, initially
recruiting for the interviews and then separately for the pilot study.
Three service providers in Ireland and three in the Netherlands
were identified as potential project sites. Each service provider’s
Director was approached by the Principal Investigator (PI) to
establish their interest in the project and confirm the presence of
individuals who would be in a position to provide their opinion
on the proposed project. In Ireland, services were then contacted
by email, with details on the ‘Get Wise about your health’ project
and, upon further confirmation of interest from the service, an
application to the ethics committee of each service was submitted.
On successfully gaining ethical approval, permission was sought
from the Director of the service to identify individuals within the
service who may be interested in collaborating on the project. In
the Netherlands, the service providers were first asked whether
they were interested in participating, after which an application to
the ethics committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center
Rotterdam was submitted. After gaining ethical approval, the Board
of Directors of the service providers gave formal permission for
collaboration in the project, and individuals that could participate
were identified via client panels. In both countries, the PI working
with the research assistant (RA) contacted the individuals and
their key worker. They were invited to discuss their involvement
in the project online or by phone, and subsequently invited to
contribute in the project. On confirmation of an expression of
interest, an individual information pack was sent to each person
via email or post and the key worker was contacted to assist with
downloading and supporting understanding. This information
packet consisted of an accessible invitation letter, an accessible
information booklet, and an accessible consent form. The team
in Ireland also created a QR code link which was included in the
information pack. The participant could scan the QR code to hear
and see the RA sign (Lámh) the information about the project.
Lámh is a sign system used in Ireland, by children and adults with
intellectual disability and communication needs (see: https://
www.lamh.org/). This contributed a further aspect to promoting
and enabling accessibility as well as building the individual’s
familiarity with the project and the project team.
The individuals were asked to consider the project and return
their consent to become involved in its co- creation. On receipt
of the consent forms, the project team arranged a date and time
to complete the interview. All contact information for the PI and
researchers was provided, should the individual have any queries
or questions. The individuals were given a minimum of seven to
fourteen days to consider the information. During this process
the project team contacted the keyworker only and no personal
participant information was taken or held by the project team.
A total of 20 participants were recruited to conduct the online
interviews across both countries.
Additional service providers were approached to support
pilot testing the programme on its completion. In total 17
participants were recruited from existing client panels and the
recruitment process followed the same process as recruitment for
• Children or young adolescents Withdrawal of Participants
from the Project
Participants were assured of their rights at the beginning of
each interview and could withdraw from the study at any point.
They were not required to specify a reason for withdrawal, nor
were there any consequences for doing so. Participants were
reminded of their rights through a system of process consent
during the interview and their choice was always respected.
Participants were encouraged to take a break at any point
during the interviews to ensure they were not overburdened.
Furthermore, if the participants wished, their keyworker could
be present throughout the interview and had the discretion to
withdraw a participant from the project for a medical reason if
they deemed this necessary. The team sought the keyworker’s
assistance to ensure all potential participants understood the
project and were aware of their right to participate or not without
any negative consequences from their choice.
If participants wished to withdraw from the project the
protocol was to provide them with an opportunity to speak with
the researcher to discuss any concerns or questions they may have
had. When needed, the participant’s key worker was to be present
for the interview to ensure that adequate support to the individual
could be provided. A debrief sheet would also be provided to the
participant, and the PI and RA would go through this in detail with
each participant. This included relevant contact information and
details of appropriate supports, should the participant require. No
participant withdrew during the project.
Following the change of project implementation due to
COVID19 impact, participants were invited to conduct the
interview through video call (MS Teams) or by telephone, with the
researcher. The PI and RA held an information session with each
individual, prior to the interview, detailing the project protocol
and building familiarisation with the online meeting system. The
PI and RA also went through the informed consent process and
ensured that consent was obtained. The interviews lasted 20-45
minutes in total. Participants completed the interview at a time
and place of their choosing over video call with the support of
their keyworker when needed. Choice of conducting a phone
call or video call was offered however all participants opted for
a video call. Agreement to also have interview audio recorded
was confirmed. The questionnaire included three sections: 1.
Attending the Doctor; 2. Bone Health; 3. Digital Use. All questions
were presented in easy read format, plain language supported
with visual representation. As the project is focused on improving
people’s knowledge and experience of health, all questions
were posed positively and focused on best practice. Knowledge
gaps were identified to inform module content and participant
expertise was sought to inform the overall accessibility and
interface of the programme. Each keyworker played a central
role in assisting with the interviews. Once the interview was
complete, the researcher went through the debrief form with each
participant and the participant had the opportunity to discuss the
interview and ask any further questions that they may have had.
All data gathered from the interview was transcribed by the RA.
On receipt of the consent the interview was arranged. Before
each interview began, the team went through the nature of the
questions which would be asked during the interview. Participants
were informed that any information discussed throughout the
interview was private and confidential. The individual was asked
to sign or mark (if unable to sign their name) the consent form. The
mark made by the participant was witnessed by their keyworker,
to confirm that they had consented to participate.
The project sought permission to photograph the online
interviews, with the purpose of demonstrating the process in
action and as evidence of work complete for the purposes of audit
from the funders. This was identified in the consent form and
the information booklet. Any individual who did not consent to
having their photo taken had their right of choice respected and
Get Wise was a limited risk project, however as people
were asked to give their opinion on personal experiences and
information, there was the potential that discussion of these
topics could unearth unpleasant prior experiences or memories of
a challenging period of time that the participant had experienced.
To manage this risk, the research team enacted a range of
strategies to appropriately respond to any potential distress.
These included consultation with participants regarding stopping
the interview, taking a break or redirection, and changing of
topic. The researchers also worked with each keyworker to
ensure the utmost safety of all participants. The researchers
were experienced in working with and supporting people with
intellectual disability; they were trained in sensitive interviewing
and in responding appropriately to participants in distress.
Participants were provided with a debrief sheet in easy
read format. The PI and RA checked through this with each
participant after the interview. This provided an opportunity for
the participant to ask any further questions and reflect on their
experience. A specified email was provided for the participant to
contact the PI, should they have any additional questions after the
interview had been completed.
All data was handled confidentially, and each participant
received a numeric, four-digit code, which was not related to
initials, birth date, or the code of the services. Data collected,
entered, and analyzed was pseudonymized. Only the researcher
team had access to the source data in which the codes were linked
to the individual participant. The PI and RA had access to the
signed consent forms and securely kept all signed consent forms
separate from the interview transcripts, for the life of the project
plus the statutory years in accordance with data protection
legislation in each country. All data is stored in encrypted secured
drives in each respective universities. Participants were asked
their name for the purposes of engaging with the project team
during the online interview but no other personal information
such as age, address or current status was requested.
Data from the interviews was transcribed verbatim from
a recording of the online interview on MS teams, no individual
outside of the project team has access to the information collected.
No copies of the information collected were allowed. The
information collected was themed and only the themes emerging
from the analysis of the discussion were shared to inform the
development of the module content. Vignettes or quotes were
used; however, these have been anonymised.
The interview data-analysis began after the first interviews
and was executed simultaneously with the data-collection.
Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts, using
the six-step Braun & Clarke  framework. The first two Irish
interviews were analyzed by two researchers. Together they
constructed a coding-tree. Initially this was achieved by giving
open codes to the data. These codes were then grouped into
overarching themes. Any differences of opinion between the
researchers were resolved through discussion. Once the coding
tree had been constructed the researchers coded the data
separately. A similar process was employed in the Netherlands.
When the data had been coded, the researchers discussed the
results with the wider team and constructed final themes across
both sets of data. For the purposes of this paper the results of this
section of the project will not be reported here.
On completion of the building of the digital platform and first
two modules online, ‘Get Wise About Visiting the Doctor’ and ‘Get
Wise About Your Bone Health’, a new group of participants were
recruited from existing client panels, linked to longitudinal studies
in both Ireland and the Netherlands to pilot-test the programme.
This ensured that any potential bias was avoided. The link to the
digital platform was shared with services who had identified
individuals who were interested in pilot-testing the programme. A
pilot- test guide was distributed to interested individuals and their
keyworkers, which included instructions about how to use the
website and work through the modules. The guide also contained
a list of sample questions relating to the course content and
website interface. Participants were invited to provide feedback
on the course content and accessibility of the platform. The RA in
both countries liaised with keyworkers and participants through
phone calls and email, to compile this feedback. This allowed
for reasonable adjustments to be made by the graphic and web
designers, before the accessible digital platform was launched.
Feedback provided referenced difficulty with finding the button
for Dutch translation, difficulty with finding the transcript button,
scaling issues and difficulty with accessing the downloadable
tools and certificate.
In total, 37 participants engaged in the project from both Ireland
and the Netherlands. The team and participants experienced equal
challenges and success during the data collection period. Direct
support, building familiarity, good communication with service
providers and ensuring the research team were available for
questions, contributed to overcoming many of the challenges and to
the overall success of the project. For many participants, the online
interview with the research team was the first time they had engaged
with people outside of their support bubbles and families, since the
emergence of COVID-19.
The majority of participants reported a high uptake of
using technology, with most participants disclosing that they
would like to engage and use technology more often. In both
countries, most participants (91.8%), reported that they used the
internet often. In the Netherlands, all participants but one had
previous experience with video calls. All participants in Ireland
required support with setting up the video call. Out of the Dutch
participants, 4 received support of keyworkers in setting up the
video call and 5 participants did not need support. Participants
across both countries used a range of technology to access the
internet, including laptops, Smartphones, Tablets and Smart TV’s
(Figure 1). In Ireland, 75% of participants reported that they had
access to the internet, with 17.8% reporting that they were unsure
as to whether they had access to the internet. The remaining
participants did not have access to the internet (7.14%) (Figure
All interviews were organized at a time that suited the
participant’s schedule. Each interview was supported with easy
read accessible information in advance. Participants found this
very helpful as they noted the material allowed them to prepare
and plan for the day of the interview and allowed them to consider
questions, they may have for the project team. The accessible
material also enabled them to understand what the process would
entail, how long it would be, who exactly would see them and their
information. It also provided clear instruction on their rights and
who they could have with them, which they reported they found
Initially there were challenges with internet connections or
access to the internet which meant some scheduled interviews had to be reset. However, participants were supported to travel
to their service, when appropriate, to gain online access. During
data collection COVID-19 restrictions changed in both countries
and this did pose problems, such as the burden the lockdown
measures posed on the personal life of participants, which were
overcome with detailed planning and support from keyworkers,
carers and the service providers. One participant withdrew from
the study due to the burden of restrictions on their personal life,
and they experienced difficulty navigating these very difficult
circumstances and participating in the pilot. Participants in
Ireland required support with setting up the online call, while
just over half of participants in the Netherlands did not require
support to do this. Keyworkers and service providers played
a vital role in enabling this. Facilitating participants to engage
online also had the additional benefit of limited disruption to their
day and it meant participants had limited travel requirements.
Participants were also able to offer immediate feedback on
their experience to both their advocacy groups and the project
team. While participants responded positively to the online
interviews and spoke openly with the research team and their
keyworkers, they reported that they would still prefer to meet in
person. Participants reported that they were looking forward to
a time when interviews could be conducted in-person again and
referenced the informal chat and tea which would usually occur
after an interview. However, they did note that they now used the
internet to stay in contact with their family.
Examining the feedback from participants regarding the
online educational platform, participants demonstrated that
overall, they have a high level of competence when using the
internet and apps. Participants reported a high uptake of online or
computer training within their services in Ireland (64.86%), which
has been reported as a positive experience for all participants.
Participants also reported a preference for interactive learning,
with support from their keyworker, which they could complete
over an extended period of time. Participants recommended that
a guide be developed to support the learner as they work through
the platform and modules. Subsequently the team have developed
an orientation guide which is available on the platform.
Online interviews were a novel method of data collection with
people with intellectual disability and one that was not initially
planned for this project. However, it proved interesting to record
participants experiences of engaging in online research, as well
as their knowledge and experience of engaging with technology.
Promoting an inclusive approach to the research ensured
meaningful engagement and optimized the experience for the
participants which Schwartz et al.  note is an essential part
of promoting good collaboration and strengthened this project’s
philosophy of co-creation and co-production. Some participants
reported that while they had enjoyed the experience, it was
important for them to know the research team prior to conducting
the online interviews. This was facilitated by building familiarity
through online information meetings and ensuring the project
team’s photos were included in the accessible material with the
added benefit of offsetting any potential communication barriers
that may arise. With familiarity it was noted the individual’s
confidence grew and their engagement in the process reaped
dividends for the team. This familiarity promotes partnership
between the researcher and the participant establishing interest
and benefit for both parties which Schwartz and colleagues 
note are components that will over time improve the process and
maintain collaboration. Furthermore, it is agreed that working
with individuals, providing a variety of communication styles
and improving collaboration will ultimately promote the best
possible outcome for individuals with intellectual disability who
heretofore were excluded from the research process [26-28].
There were certain challenges associated with conducting
online interviews such as ensuring the necessary supports
were available and scheduling. There has been a recent growth,
particularly with the onset of the pandemic, of internet use
among those with intellectual disability and it has been shown
that with the correct support and guidance individuals can
engage online  which was the case in this project. However,
broadband and device access proved to be the greatest challenge
in this project. Lack of broadband, lack of devices and poor
connectivity combine to impede individual’s digital ability and
growth. While many countries strive to provide more and faster
internet access there are pockets, particularly in rural areas, in
most countries that continue to suffer from inadequate access
contributing to a digital divide that can ultimately contribute to
social exclusion and impact negatively on the economy . For
individuals with intellectual disability this contributes further
to the challenges they experience when trying to engage with
social media and technology (Caton and Chapman 2016). If these
issues of access are not addressed, it will further contribute to
marginalizing individuals and increasing the division between
those who can and those who cannot access the internet. In this
project the key to overcoming such challenges was the support
individuals received from their carers and service providers. It
was also evident that participants had a high level of competency
with technology and used technology throughout their daily
lives. What this project has identified is that providing the right
opportunity and circumstance, and with the right supports in
place individuals with intellectual disability can use and engage
successfully online. Further, they can be involved in research and
in co-creating health promotional materials and resources. This
lesson is transferable to all online engagements not just research.
It is hoped that this message will emphasise ability and dispel the
perceived notion that people with intellectual disability cannot
use or access the internet . For those who participated in this
project they reported that they used technology to connect with
family, friends and social groups, and to engage with education
at various levels, as well as using technology for entertainment purposes, shopping and to gather more information on topics of
interest. It is evident that technology increases accessibility to a
wide range of activities, communities, experiences and people.
Individuals with intellectual disability want to have the same
experiences and opportunities as everyone else . This project
demonstrates that this is possible. Overall, participants reported
that they would like to engage with technology more often and to
incorporate it more into their daily lives and routines.
Online interviews in this project provided a method in
which people with intellectual disability were able to share their
expertise, knowledge and experiences of health education and
health provision, which has contributed to the development of the
digital health education platform, Get Wise about your Health. This
platform addresses the health disparities experienced by people
with intellectual disability and offers an accessible and practical
solution which has been co-designed and co-developed by people
with intellectual disability through the online platform. Despite
the inference in the literature and the perceived idea that people
with intellectual disability are not capable, given the right supports
and access to opportunities and technologies engaging online is
possible. Overall participants reported their online interviews
as being very positive and the rich data collected is testament
to that. Participant engagement was extremely high, and the
knowledge and personal experiences gathered from participants
greatly contributed to the development of the module content
and key learnings within the course developed. Most participants
reported online interviews as a positive experience, which they
would be happy to participate in again. Engaging individuals with
intellectual disability online was a very successful method of data
collection. The Get Wise course is available online in both English
and Dutch and can be found at www.getwiseid.eu.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the
participants, keyworkers and service providers for their support
with the Get Wise project. Thank you to the extended team of
animators, graphic designers and web developers. Without the
support of each individual. The development of the Get Wise
accessible digital platform would not have been possible. The
authors would also like to extend a particular thank you to EIT
Health, who supported the project with a research grant.
Burke ÉA, Walsh JB, McCallion P, McCarron M (2020) Making reasonable adjustment to enable and support people with intellectual disability engage in objective health measures in a research study— the health fair in the intellectual disability supplement to the Irish longitudinal study on ageing. Inclusion 8(2): 124-137.
United Nations 2015 Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development- 17981.
Inclusion Europe (2015) Information for all. European standards for making information easy to read and understand. Education and Culture DG. Lifelong learning programme. https://inclusionireland.ie/wp- content/uploads/2020/11/european-easy-read-standards.pdf.