Perceived barriers and facilitators to accessing and utilising sexual and reproductive healthcare for people who experience homelessness: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People who experience homelessness face disproportionately poor reproductive health and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to unintended pregnancy, abortion, low birth weight and preterm birth, as well as a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Precarious living conditions are known to contribute to poor uptake and engagement with sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH) for this population. AIM: To identify and understand the perceived barriers and facilitators for accessing and utilising SRH for people who experience homelessness from their perspective, and the perspective of support staff/volunteers and healthcare professionals. METHODS: Electronic databases and online sources were searched. Two reviewers independently carried out the screening, data extraction, critical appraisal, data synthesis and thematic analysis of findings. RESULTS: Following deduplication and screening, 23 papers/reports were considered eligible for the review. Barriers for people experiencing homelessness to accessing and utilising SRH were identified within the themes of complexity, feelings and knowledge (ie, individual-level factors), as well as patient/provider interaction and healthcare system (ie, organisational factors). Facilitators were identified within all of the above themes except for complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Both population characteristics and attributes of the healthcare system influence access and utilisation of SRH by people experiencing homelessness. Given the complexity of living conditions associated with homelessness, greater efforts to improve access should be placed on healthcare systems and aspects of care delivery. This systematic review highlights current gaps in the literature and provides recommendations for enhancing future research and practice to meet the needs of this vulnerable group more effectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it