MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416971024 · doi:10.1111/jar.70159

Barriers to Reproductive Health Access and Parenthood for Persons With Intellectual Disabilities in Southern Africa

2025· article· en· W4416971024 on OpenAlexaff
Stanzia Moyo, Laura Pacheco, Paul Banahene Adjei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityCulturally appropriateReproductive healthQualitative researchInclusion (mineral)Culturally sensitiveMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This brief report examines the challenges faced by adults with intellectual disabilities in Southern Africa regarding intimate relationships, parenthood and access to reproductive health services. Despite cultural values like Ubuntu emphasising interconnectedness, stigma, remnants of colonialism and underdeveloped service systems continue to marginalise individuals with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: This report synthesises existing literature to explore how cultural, historical and systemic factors shape the experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Findings reveal that cultural and religious beliefs stigmatise persons with intellectual disabilities and that this impacts opportunities for intimate relationships and parenthood. Inadequate reproductive health services and untrained healthcare providers perpetuate misconceptions and neglect, impacting the realisation of social roles for persons with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally responsive, disability-inclusive policies must address systemic exclusions. Future research should document lived experiences and develop targeted interventions, fostering a more inclusive environment where individuals and parents with intellectual disabilities can thrive.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207