Sexual and reproductive health experiences and outcomes of incarcerated women and gender-diverse people in Australia: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women and gender-diverse people are a fast-growing population in prisons in Australia. Incarceration can create barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. The objective of this scoping review was to identify what is known about the sexual and reproductive health experiences, needs and outcomes of women and gender-diverse people incarcerated in Australia. METHODS: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic scoping reviews. Databases searched included PsycINFO, Gender Studies Database, MEDLINE and CINAHL. The search yielded 658 titles and abstracts of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion. RESULTS: We identified 17 studies published between 2000 and 2023 across three states. The studies included qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs. The main outcomes of interest included: pregnancy and maternal health, contraception, sexually transmitted infections, experiences of sexual violence, and cervical health screening and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that women and gender-diverse populations in prison in Australia experience high rates of sexually transmitted infections, poor perinatal health outcomes, and unmet needs related to contraception access and perinatal health services and programmes. The negative health impacts of incarceration are especially pronounced for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women, who face additional discriminatory institutional barriers to participating in health programmes and experience a lack of culturally safe and appropriate care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it