SynthesisJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
Perceptions of People With Intellectual Disabilities on Autonomy and Decision-Making in Daily Life: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.
Synthesis in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perceptions of People With Intellectual Disabilities on Autonomy and Decision-Making in Daily Life: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Pooled it
- Supported Decision-Making Inventory: Psychometric Validation of the Catalan and Spanish Versions.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026Article
- Access to choice‑enabled healthcare providers among children and adults with intellectual disabilities in comparison with the general population (IDcare).BMC health services research · 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
Abstract
backgroundThis qualitative systematic review aimed to synthesise research on the experiences of people with an intellectual disability on autonomy and decision-making in their everyday lives.
methodA systematic review was completed of studies published between 2012 and 2024 that included qualitative data exploring perceptions of people with an intellectual disability aged 18 and over on autonomy and decision-making in their lives, excluding quantitative studies and those only including carers. Searches (conducted April-August 2022, updated June 2024) were based on terms linked to intellectual disability, autonomy and decision-making. Databases included PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, Social Sciences Full Text, SocINDEX, CINAHL, MEDLINE and Scopus. The review protocol was registered on Prospero ID: CRD42022333120.
resultsA total of 15 studies, including 246 people with an intellectual disability, met the inclusion criteria. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria. Thematic synthesis generated four primary analytical themes: 'We know what's best for you', 'The loudest voice gets heard', 'The meaning of autonomy' and 'Conflicting views on service role'.
conclusionThe findings of this synthesis suggest that people with an intellectual disability often feel that their autonomy is not prioritised and that decisions are often made for them without their input. The findings highlight the need for person-centred approaches and systemic change to support the autonomy of people with an intellectual disability. Included studies often neglected to consider the researcher-participant relationship and used varied data collection and analytic methods, which produced heterogeneity in the review findings. Future research is needed to explore the impact of societal attitudes and beliefs on the autonomy of people with an intellectual disability, as well as the effectiveness of person-centred approaches in promoting autonomy.
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.