Interventions to Support International Migrant Women's Reproductive Health in Western-Receiving Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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
Purpose: The reproductive health outcomes of international migrant women differ in comparison with receiving-country-born women, depending on country of birth and immigrant status. Effective interventions to support the reproductive health of international migrant women are not well known. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies between 2010 and 2017 evaluating interventions directly or indirectly affecting the reproductive health (as defined by the World Health Organization) of international migrant women in Western-receiving countries. Results: Sixteen studies representing 5080 migrants were identified. Interventions consisted of linguistically (e.g., translated brochures) or culturally adapted (e.g., cultural narratives) routine care or new interventions. Meta-analysis showed that interventions increased rates of preventive reproductive health activities, including mammography, condom use, and Pap test completion, by almost 18% (95% confidence interval 7.61–28.3) compared with usual care or interventions not adapted to migrant women. Conclusion: Culturally and linguistically adapted care practices congruent with target populations of international migrant women are effective in improving their reproductive health outcomes, particularly their participation in preventative reproductive health activities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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