MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158698559 · doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2021.28

Policy Implementation Challenges and Barriers to Access Sexual and Reproductive Health Services Faced By People With Disabilities: An Intersectional Analysis of Policy Actors’ Perspectives in Post-Conflict Northern Uganda

2021· article· en· W3158698559 on OpenAlexafffund
Muriel Mac-Seing, Emmanuel Ochola, Martin Ogwang, Kate Zinszer, Christina Zarowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlobal Affairs CanadaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsRedressLegislationReproductive healthHealth policyService providerIntersectionalityPublic relationsFocus groupPolitical scienceHealth carePublic administrationService (business)Economic growthBusinessMedicineSociologyEnvironmental healthGender studiesLawPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emerging from a 20-year armed conflict, Uganda adopted several laws and policies to protect the rights of people with disabilities, including their sexual and reproductive health (SRH) rights. However, the SRH rights of people with disabilities continue to be infringed in Uganda. We explored policy actors' perceptions of existing pro-disability legislation and policy implementation, their perceptions of potential barriers experienced by people with disabilities in accessing and using SRH services in post-conflict Northern Uganda, and their recommendations on how to redress these inequities. METHODS: Through an intersectionality-informed approach, we conducted and thematically analysed 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews with macro level policy actors (national policy-makers and international and national organisations); seven focus groups (FGs) at meso level with 68 health service providers and representatives of disabled people's organisations (DPOs); and a two-day participatory workshop on disability-sensitive health service provision for 34 healthcare providers. RESULTS: We identified four main themes: (1) legislation and policy implementation was fraught with numerous technical and financial challenges, coupled with lack of prioritisation of disability issues; (2) people with disabilities experienced multiple physical, attitudinal, communication, and structural barriers to access and use SRH services; (3) the conflict was perceived to have persisting impacts on the access to services; and (4) policy actors recommended concrete solutions to reduce health inequities faced by people with disabilities. CONCLUSION: This study provides substantial evidence of the multilayered disadvantages people with disabilities face when using SRH services and the difficulty of implementing disability-focused policy in Uganda. Informed by an intersectionality approach, policy actors were able to identify concrete solutions and recommendations beyond the identification of problems. These recommendations can be acted upon in a practical road map to remove different types of barriers in the access to SRH services by people with disabilities, irrespective of their geographic location in Uganda.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0200.015
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Policy and ManagementSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207