MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921208291 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdz013

A systematic review of physical and psychological health and wellbeing of older women in Sub-Saharan Africa

2019· review· en· W2921208291 on OpenAlexaff
Sowmya Mangipudi, Theodore D. Cosco, Sarah Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineGerontologyScopusPublic healthHealth careInclusion (mineral)Global healthDepression (economics)Mental healthMEDLINEPsychiatryPsychologyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the fastest growing proportion of older adults in the world, the majority of whom are women. Global health agendas, however, continue to deprioritise older women's health issues, including the incidence of and mortality from non-communicable disease (NCDs). This is the first systematic review to address the health, wellbeing and healthcare utilization of older SSA women. METHODS: Studies with primary analysis of health, wellbeing and/or healthcare utilization outcomes for women over the age of 50 from SSA countries were included. Databases searched include EMBASE, Scopus and Psycinfo. FINDINGS: About 26 studies from six SSA countries met inclusion criteria. Studies regarding NCDs predominated (n = 12), followed by healthcare utilization (n = 4), disability (n = 4), wellbeing (n = 2), depression (n = 2) and HIV (n = 2). Every study indicated significantly lower self-rated health and wellbeing, higher rates of depression, hypertension, obesity, disability or weakness for women compared with men. The studies also indicated that older women use healthcare more often, and choose public over private facilities more often. INTERPRETATION: The studies in the review had large, diverse samples. This review demonstrates the need for more gender-specific studies to better understand the unique challenges older women face in managing NCDs in particular.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207