Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes among Incarcerated Women in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women are the fastest growing population in Canadian prisons. Incarceration can limit access to essential health services, increase health risks and disrupt treatment and supports. Despite legal requirements to provide care at professionally accepted standards, evidence suggests imprisonment undermines sexual and reproductive health. This scoping review asks, "What is known about the sexual and reproductive health of people incarcerated in prisons for women in Canada?" METHODS: We use the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic scoping reviews. Databases searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Gender Studies Abstracts, Google Scholar and Proquest Dissertations and grey literature. The search yielded 1424 titles and abstracts of which 15 met the criteria for inclusion. RESULTS: Conducted from 1994-2020, in provincial facilities in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec as well as federal prisons, the 15 studies included qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. The most common outcomes of interest were related to HIV. Other outcomes studied included Papanicolaou (Pap) and sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, contraception, pregnancy, birth/neonatal outcomes, and sexual assault. CONCLUSION: Incarceration results in lack of access to basic services including contraception and prenatal care. Legal obligations to provide sexual and reproductive health services at professionally acceptable standards appear unmet. Incarceration impedes rights of incarcerated people to sexual and reproductive health.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".