ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025
The presence and absence of gender and intersectionality in the 2023 NDIS review: a content analysis.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While a world-leading initiative, Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has received criticism for its design and implementation. In particular, gender inequality in access to supports and services remains a significant issue. Was the 2023 NDIS Review successful in addressing the persistent problem of gender inequality? To answer this question, this paper presents a content analysis of key documents produced through the 2023 NDIS Review, to investigate whether and how gender inequality was acknowledged and integrated into the Review's recommendations. The analysis assessed the frequency and conceptualisation of gender-related terms and of the Review's preferred term, 'intersectionality.' The analysis found that the Review documents have limited references to gender-specific terms, often replacing them with 'intersectionality'. However, this preferred term lacked an explicit definition and was operationalised inconsistently. Implied meanings were often diluted from the conceptual origins of intersectionality. This means that gender inequalities have been largely ignored in both the findings and recommendations. We conclude that the gendered foundation of issues is obscured by diluting interpretations of 'intersectionality' to the level of individuals or groups, which sideline systemic critique. Importantly, our article highlights the need for policy makers and researchers to operationalise the term 'intersectionality' deliberately and consistently.
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.