Maternal health and maternal health service utilization among female sex workers: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High proportions of female sex workers (FSWs) become pregnant and have children. Many FSWs are at increased risk of maternal health complications due to factors such as poverty, violence, and healthcare barriers. Despite this, FSWs' maternal health and use of maternal health services (MHS) receive limited attention. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review are to (1) synthesize existing data on FSWs' maternal health and MHS utilization and (2) assess the state of peer-reviewed literature on FSWs' maternal health in regard to methodological approaches and reported outcomes. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included articles were peer-reviewed, published in English, and reported empirical data on FSWs for outcomes related to antenatal care, pregnancy, and labor complications, postnatal and delivery care, and/or barriers to MHS. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Article searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Global Health, Sociological Abstracts, Sociological Index, PsychInfo, and CINAHL. CHARTING METHODS: Information extracted from eligible articles included publication year, study design, location, sample size, outcome measures, and findings. The "Three Delays" model was used to synthesize findings on barriers to MHS as relevant to phase I, II, or III delays. RESULTS: Eighteen publications met the eligibility criteria. Studies were conducted in 11 countries and primarily reported quantitative data from cross-sectional surveys. The most frequently reported outcome was antenatal care utilization (n = 14), whereas few studies reported findings related to postnatal care and breastfeeding counseling (n = 2). Across publications, there was a substantial range in the proportion of FSWs who reported accessing different types of MHS. CONCLUSION: Literature on FSWs' maternal health is limited and heterogenous. More research is needed that specifically focuses on measuring outcomes related to FSWs' maternal health and examines associated factors. Such work can inform future research directions and public health interventions for FSWs-a population of marginalized women whose maternal health has been overlooked in existing efforts.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".