MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386738056 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291486

Barriers and facilitators of access to sexual and reproductive health services among migrant, internally displaced, asylum seeking and refugee women: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4386738056 on OpenAlexaff
Pengdewendé Maurice Sawadogo, Drissa Sia, Yentéma Onadja, Idrissa Beogo, Gabriel Sangli, Nathalie Sawadogo, Assé Gnambani, Gaëtan Bassinga, Stéphanie Robins, Éric Tchouaket Nguemeleu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthGrey literatureCINAHLRefugeeHealth careNursingPopulationMedicineMEDLINECochrane LibraryFamily medicinePolitical sciencePsychological interventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Migrant, internally displaced, asylum seeking and refugee women experience ongoing risks of having their reproductive healthcare rights violated. This ever-increasing population also has limited access to sexual and reproductive health services. We conducted a scoping review to identify the barriers and facilitating factors when accessing sexual and reproductive health services for this specific population. METHODS: We searched the grey literature and queried eight bibliographic databases (Embase, Medline, Cinahl, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Hinari, and Cochrane Library) to extract articles published between January, 2000, and October, 2021. The extracted data were organized in a framework adapted from Peters et al. and then categorized as facilitators or barriers. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework and wrote the report according to the PRISMA-Scr recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 4,722 records of which forty-two (42) met eligibility criteria and were retained for analysis. Ten (10) groups of factors facilitating and/or limiting access to sexual and reproductive health care emerged from the synthesis of the retained articles. The main barriers were lack of knowledge about services, cultural unacceptability of services, financial inaccessibility, and language barriers between patients and healthcare providers. Facilitators included mobile applications for translation and telehealth consultations, patients having a wide availability of information sources, the availability health promotion representatives, and healthcare providers being trained in cultural sensitivity, communication and person-centered care. CONCLUSION: Ensuring the sexual and reproductive rights of migrant, internally displaced, asylum-seeking and refugee women requires that policymakers and health authorities develop intervention strategies based on barriers and facilitators identified in this scoping review. Therefore, considering their mental health in future studies would enable a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators of access to sexual and reproductive health services.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations57
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207