Barriers to sexual health care for sexually diverse Muslim men: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexually diverse Muslim men (SDMM) are seen to present later and with more advanced symptoms of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The limited access to sexual healthcare services is attributed to the stigma associated with their multiple intersecting identities. We conducted a scoping review to synthesise research on barriers impeding SDMM's access to sexual health care. We used Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework as the methodology for the review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' extension for scoping reviews, was used as a guide for the presentation of the results. Searches conducted in EBSCOhost, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, and Google Scholar yielded 1382 results, of which 18 studies were deemed eligible for this review. Bronfenbrenner's socioecological model was employed as a framework to analyse the studies. Through analysing the eligible studies, we identified factors operating at three different levels that can impede SDMM's access to sexual health care. Limited awareness and low-perceived risk of HIV/STIs, coupled with the fear of sexual identity disclosure might act as individual-level barriers to sexually diverse Muslim men's access to sexual health care. The experiences of discrimination within clinical settings were presented as a healthcare system-related issue discouraging SDMM from revisiting those services. Heteronormative and religious ideologies, homophobic government programs, and poverty might manifest in the more intimate domains of healthcare delivery, creating hostile spaces for SDMM. Intensive research and advocacy efforts are required to improve SDMM's access to sexual health care, which can reduce their risk of HIV/STIs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".