Experiences of accessing mental health services for women living on a low income in Canada: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to comprehensively analyze qualitative evidence on the experiences of Canadian women aged 18 years or older living on a low income. The review will examine the intersectionality of their identities and privileges when accessing mental health services, with the aim of informing targeted interventions and policy improvements. INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing body of research on mental health disparities and a call for improved mental health care, both globally and in Canada, there is a need to identify recommendations for system enhancement and to improve gender equality by understanding the nuanced experiences of accessing mental health care for Canadian women living on a low income. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include qualitative studies conducted within the past decade about women of diverse backgrounds aged 18 years or older who identify as living on a low income and who have resided in Canada for 6 months or longer. Studies using any qualitative methodology will be included. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for published studies: MEDLINE and PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL and Pre-CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LiSSa, and Google Scholar. Searches for unpublished studies will include the Primo Central Index, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and the Canadian Women's Foundation Studies. The review will include studies published in English and French in Canada, from 2013 to the present. The JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence will be followed, informing study selection, critical appraisal, extraction, synthesis, and assessment of confidence, which will be conducted by 2 reviewers independently. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023430100.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".