Sexual and reproductive health outcomes for forcibly displaced persons living in urban environments in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to characterize the state of literature regarding forcibly displaced persons' sexual and reproductive health in urban areas in low- and middle-income countries. Specific objectives include describing the sexual and reproductive health outcomes among forcibly displaced persons relocating in urban environments. INTRODUCTION: As a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, and disruptive events, 89.3 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as of the end of 2021. Forcibly displaced people face a wide range of sexual and reproductive health challenges in their countries of origin, en route to final destinations, and on arrival in host communities. There is a growing urbanization of forcibly displaced persons, yet there is limited attention on sexual and reproductive health outcomes of this population. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that include sexual and/or reproductive health outcomes and needs of forcibly displaced persons within urban environments in low- and middle-income countries. Published and unpublished evidence, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods research, and gray literature, will be eligible for inclusion. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBSS, ASSIA, SSCI, and Global Medicus Index will be searched for English-language articles. Titles and abstracts will be screened against the inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of potentially eligible studies, which will be independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Eligible articles will be extracted and charted. Results from extracted data will be tabulated and accompanied by a narrative summary to summarize and contextualize the extracted data to describe how the results relate to the review's objectives and question.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".