Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to sexual and reproductive health services for women and gender-diverse people with disabilities in Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a detrimental impact on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and rights globally. However, little is known about the experiences of people with disabilities accessing SRH services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this community-engaged qualitative study, we examined COVID-related impacts on access to SRH services for people with disabilities. We interviewed 61 women and gender-diverse people in Canada from May 2022 to March 2023. Informed by disability reproductive justice, we identified four major themes through constructivist analysis. First, COVID-related changes to SRH service delivery disrupted access to care and caused disability-related health implications. Second, pandemic response measures changed SRH service accessibility: in-person accessibility barriers were amplified, new in-person accessibility barriers were introduced, and the transition to telehealth exacerbated, as well as mitigated, accessibility barriers. Third, COVID-related social changes (e.g. lockdowns) had disability-related SRH and rights implications. Fourth, disabled people recommended improving SRH services by enhancing funding, provider training, information and communication, disability accommodations, representation, and comprehensive community engagement. Cutting across these themes were disproportionate negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to SRH services for racialised women and gender-diverse people with disabilities. Failure to ensure SRH and rights for women and gender-diverse people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic undermined disability reproductive justice. Comprehensive disability community engagement is necessary to inform accessible SRH services and policies, both during and beyond a pandemic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".