Access and use of sexual and reproductive health services among resettled refugee and refugee-claimant women in high-income countries: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to understand access to and use of sexual and reproductive health services among resettled refugees and refugee-claimant women in high-income countries. INTRODUCTION: Sexual and reproductive health is a critical component of women's well-being and quality of life. Refugee and refugee-claimant women have demonstrated a lower level of sexual health knowledge and reduced usage of sexual and reproductive health services after resettling in high-income countries. This has led to negative outcomes among resettled refugee populations, including unwanted pregnancies and abortion, lower than recommended rates of cervical cancer screening, high rates of sexually transmitted infections, and non-consensual sex. Despite these negative outcomes, no review has been conducted to understand access to and use of sexual and reproductive health services among resettled refugee women in high-income countries. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will seek to identify studies that describe access to and use of sexual and reproductive health services among refugee and refugee-claimant women who have resettled in a high-income country. Evidence from qualitative, quantitative, mixed method studies, and gray literature will be included. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search strategy, developed with a librarian scientist, will be used to identify relevant sources. Titles, abstracts, and full texts will be evaluated against inclusion criteria. Information will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a screening tool. Data will be synthesized and presented narratively, with tables and figures where appropriate.
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 | 0.052 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 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".