Integrating Nutrition, Psychosocial Wellbeing, and Reproductive Health Pathways among Rohingya Women and Adolescents in Registered and NonRegistered Camps, Cox’s Bazar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rohingya crisis in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, remains one of the world’s most protracted humanitarian emergencies, where reproductive health, nutrition, and psychosocial wellbeing intersect amid chronic vulnerability. Persistent food insecurity, unsafe WASH conditions, and psychological distress continue to undermine the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) of women and adolescents. This mixed qualitative study examined these interlinkages across nine camps—six registered and three non-registered. Data were collected through 18 focus-group discussions (72 men/boys; 63 women/girls), 30 key-informant interviews with officials and frontline workers, structured field observations, and a review of 20 policy and operational documents. Five key themes emerged: (1) monotonous diets and micronutrient deficiencies, particularly iron-deficiency anemia among adolescent girls and pregnant women; (2) gendered mobility restrictions limiting access to SRH and psychosocial services; (3) distress associated with food shortages, idleness, and gender-based violence; (4) inadequate menstrual-hygiene management (MHM) and WASH infrastructure; and (5) systemic inequities and neglect in nonregistered camps. Findings emphasize the urgent need for an integrated reproductive-health pathway linking nutrition and anemia screening with psychosocial and maternal care, supported by gender-sensitive WASH improvements. Policy priorities include adolescent SRH, MHM, and mental-health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), alongside equitable service coverage for non-registered camps. The evidence contributes to the RRRC-led SOP reform process and aligns with global commitments to reproductive rights, gender equity, and humanitarian accountability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".