Perinatal care experiences of women living with disability in Africa: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will explore the perinatal care experiences of women living with disability in African countries. INTRODUCTION: In many African countries, most women with disability face stigma and discrimination. They are also at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases due to gender-based violence and sexual abuse. Qualitative studies on perinatal care experiences of women with disability in Africa indicate challenges such as social stereotypes, lack of access to health facilities, and insensitivity from health professionals. Synthesizing the qualitative findings about the perinatal care experiences of women with disability in Africa will provide insights into the needs of this population and identify gaps in health care practice. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include all settings in which women with disability in Africa receive maternal health care services, such as hospitals, clinics, primary care, community health centers, and homes. We will consider studies published from 2008 onward that present qualitative data, including designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research, and feminist research. METHODS: The review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. The following databases will be searched: Global Health, CINHAL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), Sabinet African Journals, and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost). Theses and dissertations will be searched through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and meta-aggregation. Confidence in the findings will be assessed in accordance with the ConQual approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023431799.
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 | 0.123 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.005 |
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".