MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108906237 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-101217/v1

Access to Formal Maternal Health Services and Informal Supports for Resettled Refugee Mothers in the Postnatal Period: A Scoping Review Protocol

2020· review· en· W3108906237 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Stirling-Cameron, Benjamin J. DuPlessis, Megan Aston, Howard Ramos, Lois Jackson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsRefugeePeriod (music)Protocol (science)MedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The postnatal period is a critical time when women may need access to formal maternal health services (e.g., family physicians) and informal supports (e.g., family, friends). Resettled refugee women often encounter a myriad of barriers and challenges when attempting to access these services and supports in resettlement countries, including language and communication differences, socioeconomic constraints, challenges navigating foreign healthcare systems, and reduced social support networks. This has contributed to health inequities among postnatal resettled refugee women, including low self-reported health, five-times higher rates of postpartum depression, and social isolation. The purpose of this review is to understand access to formal maternal health services and informal supports for resettled refugee women during the postnatal period. 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. Evidence from peer-reviewed and gray literature published after 2003 will be included. This review will focus only on studies conducted in middle- and high-income resettlement countries. 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. Discussion: This scoping review will provide an overview of resettled refugee women’s experiences during the postnatal period, with a focus on understanding access to health services and the availability and use of informal supports. It is expected that this review will outline both the barriers and facilitators affecting resettled refugee women seeking formal and informal care during the postnatal period. Findings will help to inform policy direction and future interventions seeking to improve postnatal care for resettled refugee women.Systematic Review Registration: This scoping review protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework database, https://osf.io/rkqj6.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.014
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.420 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→