Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Immigrant women in Canada and many other Western countries have been reported to experience disproportionately high rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and unmet need for family planning. This indicates that their needs are not being met, with many studies calling for family planning services and information that are more accessible and better adapted to meet the needs of migrants. In Toronto (Canada), community and social service organizations have been suggested as a potential avenue to better understand and improve immigrant women’s access to family planning services and information. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators to family planning from the perspective of stakeholders that provide settlement services to immigrant communities in Toronto.\n\nMethodology: 13 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key-stakeholders providing settlement services to newcomer communities in Toronto. The data was then transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.\n\nResults: According to stakeholders from settlement organizations, newcomer women’s access to family planning can be hindered by: sociocultural barriers (including gender roles and a lack of autonomy), stigma against sexual and reproductive health topics, language barriers and financial barriers. On the other hand, stakeholders identified the following facilitators to improve immigrant women’s access to family planning: sociocultural facilitators (including more relatable information and community advocates), normalizing family planning topics, creating safe spaces, and harnessing women’s motivation to learn for the benefit of their children.\n\nConclusion: Altogether the barriers and facilitators found in this study can be used to guide the development of family planning health promotion that is better suited to meet the needs of newcomers.\n\nKeywords: family planning, immigrants, refugees, qualitative research, Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".