Research on the barriers to accessing sexual healthcare for sexually diverse Muslim men: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexually diverse Muslim men are seen to be at a higher risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections due to their limited access to sexual healthcare services. We outline a protocol to conduct a scoping review of research on the barriers that may impede these men's access to sexual healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To conduct this scoping review, we will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' extension for scoping reviews. To classify the barriers to sexual healthcare, we will employ Bronfenbrenner's socioecological model as a conceptual framework. We will conduct a literature search via Medline, Embase and Global Health (OVID); Scopus; CINAHL on EBSCOhost along with several other EBSCOhost databases (Academic Search Complete, Canadian Reference Centre, Alternative Press Index, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Social Work Abstracts) and Google Scholar, published until November 2023. Journal articles, published in the English language, describing quantitative and qualitative research on sexual healthcare access barriers for sexually diverse Muslim men will be included in the review. Commentaries and correspondences, along with grey literature including research reports and conference abstracts, as well as studies that do not include men with the Muslim faith, will be considered ineligible. Following screening of titles and abstracts, we will conduct a full-text screening to determine the final number of studies to be included in the review. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be used to extract study characteristics, and information on sexual healthcare access barriers will be classified according to the socioecological model's core concepts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our review does not require ethics approval. We will disseminate the review findings through peer-reviewed academic journals, seminars and conference presentations.
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 | 0.117 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.019 |
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".