Access to Mental Healthcare Services for Black Women during Perinatal Period – A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Black women in Canada are at higher risk of poor mental health outcomes; this is associated with disparities such as poor access to healthcare and aggravated by racial discrimination and poor living conditions. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the extent and nature of literature on access to mental healthcare services for Black women during the perinatal period in regions outside of Africa and the Caribbean. METHODS: We conducted a systematic article search using Medline, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; ProQuest Public Health Database. The search strategy based on the following aspects: 1) Perinatal mental health, specifically maternal mental health 2) People of color, specifically Black people of African descent, or the African diaspora 3) Experiences with mental healthcare, specifically access and utilization. Arksey & O’Malley’s framework for conducting scoping reviews was chosen. The included studies met the following criteria: 1) articles that focused on Black Women during perinatal period living in regions outside of African and the Caribbean, 2) studies with topics related to mental health services among Black women during perinatal period. RESULTS: n=12 articles met the inclusion criteria. The following themes were identified from the analysis of literature: 1) Disparities in utilization of mental healthcare services, 2) Spirituality, Faith, and Religion, 3) Accessibility of mental healthcare services. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of evidence about the mental health of prenatal and postnatal Black women living outside Africa and the Caribbean in countries other than the US, the UK, and Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 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".