MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406114877 · doi:10.1111/bjh.19984

An approach to Hemequity: Identifying the barriers and facilitators of iron deficiency reduction strategies in low‐ to middle‐income countries

2025· article· en· W4406114877 on OpenAlexaff
Shiliang Ge, Saif Ali, Victoria Haldane, Carine Bekdache, Grace H. Tang, Michelle Sholzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIron deficiencyLow and middle income countriesLow incomeReduction (mathematics)MedicineEnvironmental healthBusinessEconomic growthInternal medicineSocioeconomicsDeveloping countryEconomicsAnemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 1.92 billion people worldwide are anaemic, and iron deficiency is the most common cause. Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) disproportionately affects women of reproductive age and remains under-addressed in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). The primary objective of our scoping review is to evaluate the barriers and facilitators to IDA management in LMICs by using an intersectionality-enhanced implementation science lens adapted from the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. A total of 53 studies were identified. Contextual barriers included the deprioritization of IDA risk, unequal gender norms and stigma from the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Regional poverty, conflict and natural disasters led to supply chain barriers. Individual-level facilitators included partner support and antenatal care access while barriers included forgetfulness and having medical comorbidities. Successful interventions also utilized education initiatives to empower women in community decision-making. Moreover, community mobilization and the degree of community ownership determined the sustainability of IDA reduction strategies. IDA is not only a medical problem, but one that is rooted in the sociocultural and political context. Future approaches must recognize the resilience of LMIC communities and acknowledge the importance of knowledge translation rooted in community ownership and empowerment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207