Determinants of accessibility to primary sexual reproductive health care among vulnerable women in Canada: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review is to describe, synthesize and document the determinants that impact a vulnerable woman's access to primary sexual reproductive health care in Canada. INTRODUCTION: Canada is committed to advancing sexual reproductive health care initiatives. Although both men and women require sexual reproductive health care, the implications for women are far more significant. While Canadian women do generally experience "good health," issues with sexual reproductive health do exist, particularly for vulnerable women for whom questions about accessibility arise. Therefore, there is a need to understand the true extent of a woman's access to sexual reproductive health in Canada. Findings will be used to inform future implementation research and provide recommendations to key stakeholders. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies on primary access to sexual reproductive health care for vulnerable women (those living in poverty, with risky sexual behaviors, and/or are Indigenous, immigrants or refugees) aged nine to 49 who reside in Canada will be considered. Studies published in French or English from 2008 will be included. Women with a physical and/or mental disability and/or who are part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community will be excluded if they do not have one or more of the defining characteristics listed above. METHODS: Databases to be searched include PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and Women's Studies International. Gray literature searches will also be conducted. Following screening, all identified citations will be collated. Titles and abstracts will be screened by independent reviewers. Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full and assessed. Data will be extracted by independent reviewers and presented in diagrammatic or tabular form and accompanied by a narrative summary.
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 | 0.072 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.004 |
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".