MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061246618 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v1n1p12

Barriers to Utilisation of Sexual Health Services by Female Sex Workers in Nepal

2009· article· en· W2061246618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laxmi V. Ghimire, Edwin van Teijlingen

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityHealth servicesReproductive healthMedicineSex workersService providerPublic healthService (business)PharmacyHealth careNursingEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePopulationBusinessResearch methodologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual health services are relatively rare in Nepal. Female sex workers (FSWs) do not use health services as much as would be desirable. A study was conducted to identify barriers to access of sexual health services by FSWs in Nepal. A mixed-method approach consisting of a 425 questionnaire-based survey and 15 in-depth interviews were conducted in 2007.One fifth of the FSWs had never visited health facilities. FSWs turned to private clinics followed by clinics belonging to non-governmental organisations and pharmacies for treatment. A combination of personal and service-related factors acted as critical barriers in accessing health services. Lack of confidentiality, discrimination and negative attitudes held by health care providers, poor communication between service providers and fear of exposure to the public as a sex worker were the major barriers to seeking sexual health services. These barriers should be taken into account while planning for sexual health services.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207