ArticleBMJ open2025
Ethnological study of birth timing decisions: a scoping review protocol.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBirth timing decisions, a type of reproductive decision-making (RDM), have yet to be explored in the RDM literature through an ethnological lens. Existing literature has generally observed reproductive decisions across broad racial categories, which has not allowed for a nuanced understanding of the cultural factors influencing birth timing decisions. This scoping review aims to answer the following questions: (1) How do different ethnic groups approach birth timing decisions? (1a) What METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review follows the protocol laid out in the extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, for scoping reviews and will use thematic analysis[1]. Using four databases, Medline, Web of Science, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and Sociological Abstracts, original research articles have been captured using the attached search strategy, which contains key terms related to both the independent and dependent variables of interest. Results have been filtered to include only studies published in English within the last 20 years (2005 to present) and conducted in the USA. These criteria were implemented using a verified search string. Additional filters for human-only results were applied to the Medline search. All relevant publications have been imported to Covidence, where the authors will independently conduct title/abstract screening and full-text screening, as well as a thematic analysis of the extracted data from the remaining articles that meet the inclusion criteria. The authors aim to organise and synthesise all findings using the attached data extraction table (see supplemental documents). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study uses existing publications and therefore does not require ethics submission or review. We intend to publish our scoping review in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This scoping review protocol has been registered via Open Science Framework (OSF); the preregistration can be found at the following link: https://osf.io/6f4bq.
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.