Mapping the evidence on factors related to postpartum contraception among sub-Saharan African immigrant and refugee women in the United States of America: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postpartum contraception is essential to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care because it encourages healthy spacing between births, helps women avoid unwanted pregnancies, and lessens the risks of health problems for mothers and babies. Sub-Saharan African immigrant and refugee populations are rapidly increasing in the United States, and they come from a wide range of cultural, linguistic, religious, and social origins, which may pose challenges in timely access to culturally acceptable SRH care, for preventing mistimed or unwanted childbearing. The objective of this scoping review is to assess the extent of the available literature on postpartum contraception among sub-Saharan African immigrant and refugee women living in the United States. METHODS: We developed preliminary search terms with the help of an expert librarian, consisting of keywords including birth intervals, birth spacing, contraception, postpartum contraception or family planning, and USA or America, and sub-Saharan African immigrants, or emigrants. The study will include the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Global Health Database. The sources will include studies on postpartum care and contraceptive access and utilization among sub-Saharan African immigrants living in the US. Citations, abstracts, and full texts will be independently screened by two reviewers. We will use narrative synthesis to analyze the data using quantitative and qualitative methods. Factors associated with postpartum contraception will be organized using the domains and constructs of the PEN-3 Model as a guiding framework. CONCLUSION: This scoping review will map the research on postpartum contraception among sub-Saharan African immigrant and refugee women living in the US. We expect to identify knowledge gaps, and barriers and facilitators of postpartum contraception in this population. Based on the findings of the review, recommendations will be made for advocacy and program and policy development toward optimizing interpregnancy intervals in sub-Saharan African immigrants living in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Review registration Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/s385j.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".