Background: Menstruation poses particular challenges for women with intellectual disability (ID). In low-and middle-income countries, where these women do not have access to facilities and resources for adequate menstrual care, hysterectomy could be considered as an ethically acceptable procedure. We conducted the first systematic review to identify what constitutes best practice for menstrual hygiene in women with ID and explored the perspectives of actors involved in the hysterectomy decision.Methods: Theory-informed mixed-method thematic systematic review with theory development.Results: Eleven ethical guidelines and 17 studies were included. Respect for autonomy and the patient's best interest were the criteria to determine what constitutes best practice. The actors' values and attitudes expressed some dimensions of existing inequities. In low-and middle-income countries, the main concern of parents was the difficulty to train their daughters about menstrual hygiene. Parents (mothers in particular) also expressed the feeling of being excessively burdened, and complained about the limitations of their support networks. Doctors perceived hysterectomy as a safe procedure and a solution for women with ID, whose menstrual hygiene is problematic. In general, the more severe or profound the level of ID, the more likely the interested parties advocated for a hysterectomy. The women with ID perceived their menstruation as a negative experience. Hence, the three parties supported hysterectomy for menstrual hygiene. Parents and doctors considered informed consent or assent (from the women with ID) as necessary and achievable.Conclusion: The international ethical guidelines suggest that non-therapeutic hysterectomy in women with ID should not and ought not to be recommended as routine and appropriate method to cope with menstrual hygiene even if it is technically safe. Although hysterectomy to cope with menstrual hygiene is still a live issue in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, in high income countries it is performed with authorization from the Court; whilst in low-and middle-income countries there is not an active involvement of the State, or financial or training support for women with ID and their carers. Hence, in low-and middle-income countries there is an urgent need to develop and enact policies and statutes in this area of public health and clinical practice.

BackgroundThe pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected all age groups, including the pediatric population, in 3–5% of all cases. We performed a meta-analysis to understand the survival and associated complications in pediatric cancer patients as well as their hospitalization, intensive care, and ventilation care (supplemental oxygen/endotracheal intubation) needs.MethodsA systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, TRIP Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO), The Cochrane Library, Wiley, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Additionally, a search using the snowball method was performed in Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, JAMA, ELSEVIER editorial, Oxford University Press, The Lancet, and MedRxiv. Searches were conducted until July 18, 2020. A total of 191 cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were integrated from 15 eligible studies. In a sub-analysis, patients were stratified into two groups: hematological cancer and solid tumors. Outcome measures were overall survival, risk of hospitalized or needing intensive care, and need for ventilatory support in any modality. The random effects statistical analysis was performed with Cochran’s chi square test. The odds ratio (OR) and heterogeneity were calculated using the I2 test.ResultsThe overall survival was 99.4%. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of hospitalization between hematological malignancies and solid tumors (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–18.3; OR = 2.94). The risk of being admitted to the intensive care unit was also not different between hematological malignancies and other tumors (95% CI 0.35–5.81; OR = 1.42). No differences were found for the need of ventilatory support (95% CI 0.14–3.35; OR = 0.68). Although all the studies were cross-sectional, the mortality of these patients was 0.6% at the time of analysis.ConclusionsIn the analyzed literature, survival in the studied group of patients with COVID-19 was very high. Suffering from hematological neoplasia or other solid tumors and COVID-19 was not a risk factor in children with cancer for the analyzed outcomes.