Access and use of sexual and reproductive health services among asylum-seeking and refugee women in high-income countries: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Refugee and asylum-seeking women are known to experience a myriad of intersecting sociocultural, institutional, and systemic barriers when accessing healthcare services after resettlement in high-income countries. Barriers can negatively affect service uptake and engagement, contributing to health inequities and forgone care. Access to sexual and reproductive healthcare (e.g., family planning, cervical cancer prevention) has largely been understudied. This scoping review sought to: i) examine the use of sexual and reproductive health services among refugee and asylum-seeking women in high-income countries; and ii) identify barriers and facilitators influencing access to sexual and reproductive healthcare for refugee and asylum-seeking women in high-income countries. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews. Ten databases (e.g., CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase) were searched for qualitative, quantitative, mixed method studies, and gray literature published anytime before February 2024 across high-income countries (defined by the World Bank). The Health Behaviour Model was used to examine and understand factors influencing service use and access. RESULTS: 3,997 titles and abstracts were screened, with 66 empirical studies included. Most were conducted in the United States (44%), Australia (25%), Europe (18%) and elsewhere and were qualitative (68%). Papers largely addressed contraception, abortion, cervical cancer screening, gender-based violence, and sexual health education. Included studies indicated that refugee and asylum-seeking women in high-income countries face a greater unmet need for contraception, higher use of abortion care, and lower engagement with cervical cancer screening, all when compared to women born in the resettlement country. Frequently reported barriers included differences in health literacy, shame and stigma around sexual health, language and communication challenges, racial or xenophobic interactions with healthcare providers, and healthcare/medication costs. CONCLUSIONS: Studies across the globe identified consistent empirical evidence demonstrating health inequities facing refugee and asylum-seeking and myriad intersecting barriers contributing to underuse of essential sexual and reproductive health services. Facilitators included multilingual healthcare provider, use of interpreters and interpretation services, community health promotion work shops, and financial aid/Medicare.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".