Facilitators and barriers to accessing mental health care services and social supports among perinatal refugee women: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative review is to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence describing facilitators and barriers to perinatal refugee women's access to mental health care services and social supports. INTRODUCTION: Perinatal refugee women are a vulnerable population and at risk of mental health illness. Understanding facilitators and barriers will provide a better understanding of their experiences to inform health care practices, programs, and policies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This qualitative review will consider all peer-reviewed qualitative studies and gray literature on perinatal refugee women's experiences of accessing mental health care services and social supports. Non-English articles and studies that do not explicitly state participants' migration status as refugees will be excluded. METHODS: This review will adhere to the JBI methodology for conducting qualitative systematic reviews. Key information sources searched will be CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Social Sciences Citation Index. Search terms will be modified for each information source. Sources of evidence published in English between January 2011 and the present will be assessed for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts using the inclusion criteria for study selection. The reviewers will critically appraise methodological quality and rigor. Data will be extracted on facilitators and barriers among perinatal refugee women accessing mental health care services and social supports. Synthesis will involve aggregation of these findings to generate a set of statements based on their meaning similarity. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021245240.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".