ArticleBJPsych open2025
Injectable contraceptive use in women with intellectual disability: narrative review and service evaluation.
Article in BJPsych 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntellectual disability is defined as an IQ of 70 or below. Women with intellectual disability frequently experience menstrual distress leading to the use of hormonal medications such as depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Despite risks such as reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and weight gain, DMPA is widely used in this cohort, prompting investigation into its suitability and risks.
aimsA narrative review and local service evaluation were conducted to determine whether clinical management reflected recommendations in the literature.
methodPsycINFO and Medline were searched for articles post-1995 on contraception in menstruating women with intellectual disability. Contraceptive use in 100 randomly selected women was evaluated. Data were collected on physical health issues, general practitioner records were reviewed for contraceptive administration and risk discussions, and surveys assessed risk understanding and satisfaction.
resultsThe review identified 27 papers with higher DMPA use in the intellectual disability population compared to the general population, and specific BMD risks. The case series found 23 women with intellectual disability using DMPA, and revealed knowledge gaps in risk and monitoring, inappropriate use given individual risk, and poor proactive risk management.
conclusionsFindings indicate disproportionate DMPA use in women with intellectual disability, with inadequate clinical justification and risk awareness. Many women and carers were unaware of BMD risks, and DMPA alternatives were rarely considered. Individualised contraceptive management and closer review of DMPA use in this cohort is needed. Monitoring could include dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans, vitamin D and calcium supplementation, and weight management. Further research is needed into higher DMPA use and risks within this population.
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.