Experiences of Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Access for Women and Nonbinary People With Early Psychosis: Towards an Integrated Perspective of Service Users and Clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with psychosis are at elevated risk of adverse sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes, and not receiving adequate SRH care. SRH is important for youth, yet little is known about SRH care access and experiences among those with early psychosis. This study explored SRH care experiences among women and nonbinary individuals with early psychosis. METHOD: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 19 service users (cisgender and transgender women, nonbinary individuals) receiving care in 2 early psychosis programs in Ontario, Canada. We also conducted semistructured interviews and focus groups with 36 clinicians providing SRH or mental health care to this population. Participants were asked about SRH care access/provision experiences and the interplay with psychosis. Using a social interactionist orientation, a thematic analysis described and explained service user and clinician perspectives regarding SRH care. RESULTS: Amongst both service users and clinician groups, common themes developed: (a) diversity of settings: SRH services are accessed in a large range of spaces across the health care system, (b) barriers in nonpsychiatric SRH care settings: psychosis impacts the ability to engage with existing SRH services, (c) invisibility of SRH in psychiatric settings: SRH is rarely addressed in psychiatric care, (d) variability of informal SRH-related conversations and supports, and cutting across all of the above themes, (e) intersecting social and cultural factors impacted SRH services access. CONCLUSIONS: SRH is important for health and wellbeing; improvements are urgently needed across the healthcare system and within early psychosis programs to meet this population's multifaceted SRH needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".