Mapping the scientific literature on obstetrical and perinatal health among sexual and gender minoritised (SGM) childbearing people and their infants: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minoritised (SGM) populations are disproportionately impacted by multilevel risk factors for obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, including structural (eg, stigma, discrimination, access to care) and individual risk factors (eg, partner violence, poor mental health, substance use). Emerging evidence shows SGM childbearing people have worse obstetrical outcomes and their infants have worse perinatal outcomes, when compared with their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts; this emerging evidence necessitates a comprehensive examination of existing literature on obstetrical and perinatal health among SGM people. The goal of this scoping review is to comprehensively map the extent, range and nature of scientific literature on obstetrical and perinatal physical health outcomes among SGM populations and their infants. We aim to summarise findings from existing literature, potentially informing clinical guidelines on perinatal care, as well as highlighting knowledge gaps and providing directions for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and report findings according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We will conduct a broad systematic search in Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection. Eligible studies will include peer-reviewed, empirical, English-language publications pertaining to obstetrical and perinatal physical health outcomes of SGM people or their infants. No temporal or geographical limitations will be applied to the search. Studies conducted in all settings will be considered. Records will be managed, screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Study characteristics, key findings and research gaps will be presented in tables and summarised narratively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6fg4a/.

Don't Ditch the Laptop Just Yet: A Direct Replication of Mueller and Oppenheimer's (2014) Study 1 Plus Mini Meta-Analyses Across Similar Studies.

In this direct replication of Mueller and Oppenheimer's (2014) Study 1, participants watched a lecture while taking notes with a laptop (n = 74) or longhand (n = 68). After a brief distraction and without the opportunity to study, they took a quiz. As in the original study, laptop participants took notes containing more words spoken verbatim by the lecturer and more words overall than did longhand participants. However, laptop participants did not perform better than longhand participants on the quiz. Exploratory meta-analyses of eight similar studies echoed this pattern. In addition, in both the original study and our replication, higher word count was associated with better quiz performance, and higher verbatim overlap was associated with worse quiz performance, but the latter finding was not robust in our replication. Overall, results do not support the idea that longhand note taking improves immediate learning via better encoding of information.