MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321360244 · doi:10.34172/cjmb.2022.30

Evaluating the Relationship Between Structural Determinants of Health and Quality of Sexual Life in Women: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4321360244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marzieh Bagherinia, Mahrokh Dolatian, Zoherh Mahmoodi, Giti Ozgoli, Hamid Alavi Majd

Bibliographic record

VenueCrescent Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)ScopusReproductive healthMEDLINESystematic reviewGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthPopulationNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Quality of sexual life can be influenced by cultural and social contexts. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between structural determinants of health (such as education, income level, job, culture, and ethnicity) and quality of sexual life in women. Methods: In this systematic review, we searched six databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed/Medline (NLM), Cochrane, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to obtain all the related observational studies (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control). Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), the risk of bias in most of the included studies was fair. According to the results, the relationship between education level and quality of sexual life among women was significant in four studies. Also, in one study, job and income level were significantly correlated with women’s quality of sexual life. Conclusions: Based on the results, structural determinants of health, including education, job, and income level were significantly related with women’s quality of sexual life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.811
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.161 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrescent Journal of Medical and Biological SciencesSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207