# Medical-Legal Partnerships for women in the United States: a systematic review protocol

## TL;DR

This study aims to understand how Medical-Legal Partnerships affect women differently and identify tailored approaches to support them in the U.S.

## Contribution

The study introduces a systematic review protocol to explore gendered impacts and tailored approaches of Medical-Legal Partnerships for women.

## Key findings

- The review will compare the impacts of Medical-Legal Partnerships by gender.
- It will identify tailored approaches used by MLPs to assist women in clinical settings.

## Abstract

MLPs offer a promising approach to addressing needs related to adverse social determinants of health through the provision of legal services in clinical healthcare settings. Evidence to support the MLP model is in early stages. Little is known about the gendered impacts of the MLP model or how they might be tailored for women. The objectives of this systematic review are to (1) compare the impacts of Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) by gender, and (2) identify tailored approaches adopted by MLPs to assist women.

This protocol conforms to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocol) Statement. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, NBER, LexisUni, HeinOnline, and the National Center for Medical Legal Partnerships web site will be searched for English-language manuscripts published after 1993 (the year attributed to the first MLP). For Objective 1, we will apply the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes) Framework to determine eligibility, focusing on peer-reviewed articles that describe MLPs in the U.S. (Intervention) that serve women (Population) and present evidence on MLP’s interpersonal-, institutional-, community-, and policy-level impacts (Outcomes) by gender (Comparators). To evaluate bias in Objective 1 articles, we will use the Risk-of-Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for non-randomized studies. For Objective 2, we will apply the PICo (Population, phenomena of Interest, Context) framework, including peer-reviewed and gray literature that describes tailored approaches (phenomena of Interest) to providing legal support to women or females (Population) in U.S. clinical settings (Context). We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research to assess possible bias for Objective 2 articles. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts, meeting regularly to discuss conflicts and establish consensus. Data from selected publications will be extracted and entered in a matrix. Findings will be presented in narrative and tabular forms.

This review will provide invaluable evidence on the impact of MLPs by gender and will provide insights into future research and interventions on MLPs serving populations of women.

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/wd6t5/?view_only=2d6baf14c7b2408293ac31ee5921c8e3

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-025-02956-3.