Support and services available to at-risk mothers and their children in maternity residences: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify, categorize, and map the types of support and services available to at-risk mothers and their children in maternity residences. A secondary objective is to identify and map the measures used to evaluate the efficacy of these types of support and services. INTRODUCTION: Pregnant and parenting women and their children experiencing complex challenges related to the social determinants of health, including unstable housing and poverty, are at high risk of long-term negative health and socioeconomic outcomes. Maternity residences may provide support and services that improve this population's outcomes; however, there is little understanding of what services are offered and how efficacious they may be. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a comprehensive overview of support and services in maternity residences, and to identify the measures used to evaluate the efficacy of the support and services. This will provide the foundation to evaluate these services and outcomes and inform the development of future maternity residential programs. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies including pregnant and parenting women and gender-diverse individuals who are housed in, or accessing the services of, maternity residences in politically stable high-income countries due to challenges rooted in the social determinants of health will be considered for inclusion. We define maternity residences as any agency with a residential component offering support/services to this population. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The data will be analyzed using a quantitative descriptive analysis approach. The data analysis and discussion will be informed by the Social Determinants of Health, Reproductive Justice, Harm Reduction, and Health in All Policies frameworks.
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 | 0.123 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.011 |
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".