Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35858032›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2022

Legal abortion in childhood: the official discourse and the reality of a Brazilian case.

Lucimara Fabiana Fornari, Emiko Yoshikawa Egry, Mariana Sbeghen Menegatti, Karen Namie Sakata So, Rosa Maria Godoy Serpa da Fonseca, Maria Amélia de Campos Oliveira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lucimara Fabiana FornariUniversidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8655-6549
Emiko Yoshikawa EgryUniversidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0974-0315
Mariana Sbeghen MenegattiUniversidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4490-0356
Karen Namie Sakata SoUniversidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5584-4161
Rosa Maria Godoy Serpa da FonsecaUniversidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9440-0870
Maria Amélia de Campos OliveiraUniversidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0533-7193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveto identify the ideological perspectives of official discourses in relation to sexual violence, childhood pregnancy and access to legal abortion based on a Brazilian case.

methodsa qualitative documentary study. Data collection was carried out in documents published on official Brazilian websites, between August and December 2020. The analytical categories of gender and generation supported data analysis.

resultsa total of 39 documents were selected and three empirical categories were identified: Protection against violence in the legislation and the (re)production of injuries in reality; Facing sexual violence against children by the Brazilian State; Being a Brazilian girl: gender and generational oppressions. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: the ideological perspectives of official discourses in relation to the case showed a lack of compliance with advances in Brazilian legislation on issues related to child violence and adult-centric authoritarianism, with the imposition of gender and generation subalternity.

Indexed as

Abortion, LegalSex OffensesAdultBrazilChildFemaleGender IdentityHumansPregnancyQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID35858032
PMCPMC9728840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.