ArticleBMJ open2025
Quality of healthcare for people with intellectual disability: a mapping review protocol of the evidence in Australia and countries with similar universal health systems.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople with intellectual disability suffer from poorer health outcomes compared with the general population. Some of these inequalities are driven by systematic neglect of the healthcare system in responding to the needs of these people. This paper is a protocol for a mapping review that aims to systematically map the evidence base for the quality of healthcare for people with intellectual disability in Australia and similar universal health systems. It will use the Australian Health Performance Framework quality domains as a guide to define quality (effective, safe, appropriate, accessible, efficient/sustainable and continuity of care). The review aims to provide an overview of the existing evidence for quality in healthcare for people with intellectual disability, helping to steer future investments in improving the health and quality of life for people with intellectual disability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mapping review design has been chosen to address the broad aim and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Reviews extension guidelines. Systematic searches of scientific databases and grey literature sources will be undertaken based on a search strategy developed in collaboration with academic librarians. Two reviewers will independently screen references against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Visual/tabular summaries will then be produced alongside a descriptive overview. The mapping review has been registered with Open Science Framework (osf.io/7f8cy). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. This work is considered part of a larger stream of work by the National Centre of Excellence in Intellectual Disability and Health (NCoE) consisting of a consortium of expert organisations in intellectual disability and health. The NCoE will be engaged throughout the entirety of this review, including dissemination activities (presentations, reports, workshops and social media content).
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.