Access to health and rights of children in street situations and working children: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Street and working children (SWC) and young people (YP) are highly vulnerable to violence, exploitation, hazardous environments and human rights violations. While the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the International Labour Organisation provide some guidance, there is limited information on their right to healthcare. This study aims to identify enablers and barriers to healthcare access for SWC and document associated rights violations. METHODS: From 2000 to the present, we conducted systematic searches for SWC (0-18 years) in databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EBSCO, PUBMED and PROQUEST, using broad search terms related to street children, working children, healthcare access and rights. The searches were supplemented by grey literature and hand searches. Two independent reviewers finalised the included studies, and data were analysed using a rights-based framework with narrative analysis and thematisation. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 7346 articles (5972 for street children and 1374 for working children), with 35 studies (18 for street children and 17 for working children) included in the review. Most studies on working children (13/17) focused on trafficking/commercial exploitation. Studies were predominantly from Africa, followed by the USA, Asia, the UK and Canada, with only two employing a rights framework. SWC face barriers such as cost, distance, visibility/accessibility of services, stigma, seclusion, threats of violence, lack of legal documents, crisis-oriented healthcare use and self-medication. Enablers included agency, self-efficacy, positive relationships with adults and proactive healthcare use when accessible. Emergency departments are frequently accessed by SWC, indicating a need for healthcare professionals to be trained and sensitised. Holistic and comprehensive healthcare is essential. CONCLUSION: Significant research gaps exist, with many SWC populations under-represented. SWC share healthcare access barriers with other marginalised groups. Healthcare for SWC must be tailored to their unique needs and strengths and be holistic and trauma-informed.
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".