A six-week group menopause education programme was associated with higher questionnaire scores among women with intellectual disability, a small evaluation reports. Across the original questionnaire assessments, the mean share of correct answers was 58.7% at baseline and 98.7% after completion.
The result is a short-term signal about acceptability and knowledge, not a controlled test of whether the programme caused the change. The evaluation used a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design, meaning it combined before-and-after knowledge assessments with qualitative accounts, without a concurrent comparison group. Researchers used descriptive statistics for the questionnaires and reflexive thematic analysis, a method for identifying patterns in qualitative material, for focus groups and facilitator reflections.
How the programme was built
Ulster University researchers and Informing Choices NI developed the programme collaboratively. It was informed by a rapid review and designed around Universal Design for Learning principles, which the paper describes as supporting flexibility and comprehension. The planned format was six groups of five to 10 participants, with one-hour sessions each week for six weeks.
Women were recruited purposively through community organisations in Northwest Northern Ireland. The study reports 43 participants aged 19 to 53 across six groups. Most had mild-to-moderate intellectual disability, and one had severe intellectual disability. To take part, women had to be at least 18, able to give informed written consent and communicate in a group; translation was not available for those who could not communicate in English.
Reported attendance was generally high but variable. Average attendance was 85%, ranging from 50% to 100%, after one session affected by an organisational error was excluded from the summary. The reporting also contains an unresolved denominator problem: it says 33 people took part in six focus groups of five to eight participants, but gives 46 as the denominator elsewhere, while the overall Results section reports 43 women.
A sharp rise, but changing measures
The clearest numerical comparison came from the original questionnaire, but only a subset completed it. Twenty-three women completed the baseline measure and 21 completed the repeat measure. Baseline scores ranged from 6% to 100%, while repeat scores ranged from 75% to 100%.
The measurement changed during the study. After the initial two groups, the original knowledge questionnaire was judged unsuitable, so the final four groups used a revised Likert questionnaire that captured self-reported knowledge. On that version, 14 participants had baseline scores from 2 to 7 and post-programme scores from 14 to 18. They reported large improvement across 61 items and small improvement across 23 items.
Because the tools were different, the evaluation was reported at individual-group level rather than treating all six groups as one directly comparable set. That makes the figures useful for describing what happened within the assessed groups, but limits a single overall comparison across the programme.
What the sessions focused on
Acceptability was the primary outcome and was explored in focus groups at the end of the final session for each group. The researchers also examined facilitator reflective logs. Their qualitative analysis identified four themes: navigating change, fostering safe spaces, active learning, and empowerment through knowledge.
The themes were judged by the depth of discussion rather than by counting mentions. They therefore describe the issues that received the most sustained attention, not the number of participants who held a particular view.
What the findings can support
The two strands of evidence answer different questions. The focus groups addressed whether the programme was acceptable, while the questionnaires recorded knowledge assessments before and after participation. In this design, neither can show that the programme alone produced the higher scores. There was no randomization or concurrent control group, and the evaluation did not demonstrate a lasting effect beyond the reported assessment period.
The sample also limits the reach of the finding. It was purposively recruited from community organisations in one region, and the English-language eligibility rule excluded people for whom translation was unavailable. Only one participant had severe intellectual disability, so the results provide little evidence about women with more severe disability.
Ethical approval was granted by the Ulster University Research Ethics Committee in July 2023, and participants were told that joining was voluntary and that they could withdraw.
The project was funded by The Ideas Fund United Kingdom. Deborah McGinn, who delivered the intervention, was employed by Informing Choices, the community organisation that received the funding.
For now, the study documents engagement with a tailored group programme and higher questionnaire scores in the assessed subsets. A consistent knowledge measure and longer follow-up would be needed to establish whether the measured gains persist beyond completion.
Paper data and sources
Original title: Development of a menopause education programme for women with a learning disability.
Authors: Claire McFeeters, Deborah McGinn, Katy Pedlow
Journal/Repository: Journal of intellectual disabilities : JOID
Status: Peer-reviewed
First online: 2026-08-20
DOI: 10.1177/17446295261479218
Original paper · Full text