ArticleBMJ open2025
Impact of employment support in different work environments on individuals with intellectual disability and their families from their own perspectives: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople with intellectual disability experience lower levels of employment than those with other disabilities and those without disability, and typically require support services to access and maintain employment. Reviews on employment support often focus on the perspectives of providers and employers, meaning that, thus far, the perspectives of people with intellectual disability and their family members have not been collated and synthesised. This review will address this evidence gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Six databases (CINAHL, EconLit, EMBASE, Medline Complete, PsychINFO, Web of Science) will be comprehensively searched for the last 20 years to identify English-language, peer-reviewed publications including primary qualitative data. Search results will be independently screened by three reviewers (CP, NM, SF). Backwards and forwards citation tracing will be used to identify any additional literature not found by the searches. A narrative summary of the included studies will be provided. Study characteristics such as research focus, design, setting and findings will be independently extracted by one reviewer, checked by a second. Methodological quality will be independently evaluated by two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Studies Checklist. Findings from the studies will be collated using thematic synthesis and a realist approach. Any disagreement during the review process will be resolved by a third reviewer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required to conduct the planned systematic review of peer-reviewed, published articles because the research does not involve human participants. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at leading disability conferences and disseminated via website postings and social media channels. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024615393.
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.