ArticleBMJ open2024
Explaining reproductive health inequalities among people with intellectual disabilities: a meta-narrative review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethical nursing strategies for ART in intellectual disability: tools and systemic pathways.Nursing ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople with intellectual disabilities experience health inequalities at a greater level than their non-disabled peers. Notably, while general health status is starting to receive some attention, the reproductive health and rights of people with intellectual disabilities continue to be understudied from a policy and research perspective. The objective of this review is to elucidate the complex interplay between individual, social and structural factors that influence reproductive health outcomes for this population. The findings will be used to develop a theoretical framework to explain how and why reproductive health inequalities persist for people with intellectual disabilities and to identify gaps in the knowledge base to inform future research on this topic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A six-stage meta-narrative review will be undertaken to synthesise the available evidence that seeks to explain the reproductive health inequalities experienced by people with intellectual disabilities and the factors contributing to these inequalities. The protocol for this review was developed in accordance with the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards publication standards, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol guideline is completed to ensure transparency. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This meta-narrative review protocol does not require formal ethics review because it will be based on published studies. The findings from this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences. We will also produce our findings in a range of accessible and easy-to-read formats. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024495199.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.