The intersectional jeopardy of disability, gender and sexual and reproductive health: experiences and recommendations of women and men with disabilities in Northern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals committed to "Leave No One Behind" regardless of social identity. While access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services has improved globally, people with disabilities continue to face enormous barriers to SRH, infringing on their SRH rights (SRHR). Uganda adopted pro-disability legislation to promote the rights of people with disabilities. Despite these legal instruments, SRHR of people with disabilities continue to be violated and denied. To address this, we sought to understand and document how people with disabilities perceive the relationships between their use of SRH services, legislation, and health policy in three districts of the post-conflict Northern region of Uganda. Through an intersectionality-informed analysis, we interviewed 32 women and men with different types of impairments (physical, sensory and mental) and conducted two focus groups with 12 hearing and non-hearing disabled people as well as non-participant observations at seven health facilities. We found that disabled people's access to SHR services is shaped by the intersections of gender, disability, and violence, and that individuals with disabilities experienced discrimination across both private-not-for-profit and public health facilities. They also encountered numerous physical, attitudinal, and communication accessibility barriers. Despite policy implementation challenges, people with disabilities expected to exercise their rights and made concrete multi-level recommendations to redress situations of inequity and disadvantages in SRH service utilisation. Intersectionality revealed blind spots in policy implementation and service utilisation gaps. Universal health coverage can be operationalised in actionable measures where its universality meets with social justice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".