MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283575555 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2022.100085

Sexual and gender minority health in the Middle East and North Africa Region: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4283575555 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Abboud, Cindy B. Veldhuis, Suha Ballout, Fatima Nadeem, Kate Nyhan, Tonda L. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsMiddle EastReproductive healthSexual minorityGeographyPolitical scienceGender studiesSocioeconomicsMedicineEnvironmental healthSociologyPopulationSexual orientationArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Researchers in studies from multiple countries suggest that sexual and gender minority people experience high rates of violence, stigma, and discrimination, as well as mistrust of health care providers and systems. Despite growing evidence related to sexual and gender minority health in North America and Europe, we know little about the health of this population in the Middle East and North Africa. Objectives: We aimed to comprehensively examine the literature related to the health of sexual and gender minority people in the Middle East and North Africa and to identify research gaps and priorities. Design: We conducted a scoping review informed by the framework recommended by Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) tool. Data sources: We searched the following databases: PubMed (using Medline All on the Ovid platform), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), and Embase (Ovid). The search strategy combined terms for the geographic region of interest (Middle East and North Africa) and the population of interest (sexual and gender minority). Each was operationalized using multiple search terms and, where available, controlled vocabulary terms. Review Methods: Research articles were identified and assessed for inclusion using an explicit strategy. Relevant information was extracted and synthesized to present a descriptive summary of existing evidence. Results: = 32). Five themes emerged from the review: sexual health (52; 53%); mental health (20; 20%); gender identity (17; 17%); violence and discrimination (7; 7%); and experiences with the healthcare system (2; 2%). Although researchers focused on multiple health outcomes in some studies, we included them under the theme most closely aligned with the main objective of the study. Conclusion: Although our study is limited to few countries in the Middle East and North Africa region, we found that sexual and gender minority individuals face multiple adverse sexual and mental health outcomes and experience high rates of stigma, discrimination, and violence. More research is needed from countries outside of Lebanon, Pakistan, and Iran, including community-based participatory approaches and multi-level intervention development. Nurses and other healthcare providers in the region need training in providing inclusive care for this population.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0200.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.575
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.028 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies AdvancesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207