MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323067089 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066704

Sexual health promotion for sexual and gender minorities in primary care: a scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4323067089 on OpenAlexafffund
Paige Homme, Robinson Truong, Jenny Gong, Carolyn Ziegler, Cassandra Freitas, Anna Yeung, Darrell H. S. Tan, Ann N. Burchell

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careReproductive healthProtocol (science)Promotion (chess)Family medicinePublic healthPrimary health careAlternative medicineHealth careHealth promotionNursingEnvironmental healthPathologyPopulationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) face health disparities related to systemic discrimination and barriers to sexual health. Sexual health promotion encompasses strategies that enable individuals, groups and communities to make informed decisions regarding their sexual well-being. Our objective is to describe the existing sexual health promotion interventions tailored for SGMs within the primary care context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review and search for articles in 12 medical and social science academic databases on interventions that are targeted towards SGMs in the primary care context in industrialised countries. Searches were conducted on 7 July 2020 and 31 May 2022. We defined sexual health interventions in the inclusion framework as: (1) promote positive sexual health, or sex and relationship education; (2) reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted infections; (3) reduce unintended pregnancies; or (4) change prejudice, stigma and discrimination around sexual health, or increase awareness surrounding positive sex. Two independent reviewers will select articles meeting inclusion criteria and extract data. Participant and study characteristics will be summarised using frequencies and proportions. Our primary analysis will include a descriptive summary of key interventional themes from content and thematic analysis. Gender-based Analysis Plus will be used to stratify themes based on gender, race, sexuality and other identities. The secondary analysis will include the use of the Sexual and Gender Minority Disparities Research Framework to analyse the interventions from a socioecological perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for a scoping review. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X5R47). The intended audiences are primary care providers, public health, researchers and community-based organisations. Results will be communicated through peer-reviewed publication, conferences, rounds and other opportunities to reach primary care providers. Community-based engagement will occur through presentations, guest speakers, community forums and research summary handouts.

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)0.130
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1300.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0190.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.022

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 head0.537
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.084 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→