Sexual and Reproductive Health of Rohingya Refugee People In Bangladesh: A Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Rohingya refugees are one of the most vulnerable population groups from any perspective, and that certainly includes their sexual and reproductive health and access to appropriate services. This review synthesizes SRH status and needs of Rohingya women of reproductive age, addressing their experiences in accessing services. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, this review employs quality assessment tools (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, MMAT, Cochrane Risk of Bias). The search strategy will be comprehensive, spanning prominent databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Additionally, a diligent search will extend to gray literature, reference lists, and citations. Synthesis: Employing a narrative synthesis approach, the data synthesis will encompass three critical domains: the SRH status and needs of Rohingya women, the barriers encountered in accessing SRH services, and the effectiveness of existing SRH interventions. Results: The review seeks to provide valuable insights for policymakers and healthcare practitioners, offering a foundation for evidence-based strategies aimed at advancing SRH outcomes among Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and similar Asian contexts. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023444386) for transparency and efficiency. Conclusion: Have been made to address the health and humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, there is still limited knowledge about their SRH.
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 | 0.075 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.007 |
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".