Barriers to the provision of sexual health services for people with disabilities: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disabled people have the same sexual needs as other people. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to the provision of sexual health services for people with disabilities. The review was conducted on quantitative and qualitative studies on barriers to provision of sexual health services to people with disability using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach for systematic review research. Several databases including: Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Science Direct, were searched to retrieve studies on the topic in English biomedical literature from 2006 to 2022. A manual search of reference lists was also performed. Primary studies were reviewed to identify barriers to providing sexual health services to people with disabilities from the perspectives of people with disabilities and health care providers. Two researchers used Newcastle-Ottawa tool for observational studies and JBI-QARI tool for qualitative studies to assess the quality of the articles and extracted their main findings independently. A total of 207 studies were identified. Of these, only 21studies were eligible for analysis. A total of 32 barriers were identified and classified into four levels: structural and organizational, individual, socio-cultural, and policy-related barriers. people with disabilities faced numerous barriers in receiving sexual health services. Indeed, identifying problems, and implementing interventions to reduce or remove these barriers is vital to improve the access of People with disabilities to sexual health services and their sexual rights.
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 | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".