Newcomer youth’s access to contraception care in Canada: A scoping review of qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many newcomer youth in Canada experience high rates of unmet sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care needs, including contraception. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative evidence to understand newcomer youth's experiences of accessing contraception care in Canada. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines to search five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative and mixed methods studies describing newcomer youth experiences of SRH in Canada, published in or after 2010 were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We adapted relevant headings for our data charting table from the JBI guidelines and a published scoping review on adolescent health. We reported the findings of our analysis as a narrative summary of the included articles. RESULTS: We screened 415 titles and abstracts and retrieved 17 eligible studies for full-text review, of which five were included for analysis. Results highlight that sociocultural influences play an important role in newcomer youth's perspectives and access to contraception care. The language preferences of newcomer youth in the context of contraception are unique and differ from the needs of the broader immigrant population seeking general health care. Results also identify formal and peer-based educational SRH interventions acceptable to newcomer youth. CONCLUSION: Literature that qualitatively describes newcomer youth's experiences with contraception is scarce, and existing literatures only mentioned contraception in the context of broader SRH-related issues. Further research that specifically focuses on contraception experiences, involves newcomer youth in the research process and explores the roles of peers in contraception access of newcomer youth is required to better understand their experiences.
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 | 0.050 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".