Exploring the mental and reproductive health of women deprived of liberty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health and well-being of incarcerated individuals, particularly women, were deemed crucial topics that warranted thorough investigation, given the disparities in accessing reproductive healthcare services despite constitutional rights. This study aimed to explore reproductive healthcare needs, services, and disparities among incarcerated women, with a specific focus on routine screenings, menstruation-related concerns, prenatal and postpartum care, contraception, and sexually transmitted infections. One-on-one interviews were carried out with thirty (30) incarcerated women aged 18-45. Data collected were processed through transcription and thematic analysis. The findings from these interviews revealed several recurring themes that shed light on the challenges faced by incarcerated women. These included the detrimental impact of stress on menstrual health, insufficient reproductive health education, the restrictive nature of policies affecting reproductive rights, limited access to menstrual hygiene products, dissatisfaction with visitation policies, and inadequate healthcare services, coupled with difficulties in obtaining necessary medical assistance. The study underscores the urgent need for addressing these disparities through a multifaceted approach. This approach includes advocating for policy reforms aimed at improving access to healthcare services, implementing comprehensive reproductive health education programs within correctional facilities, and ensuring equitable distribution of menstrual hygiene products. By addressing these challenges in a holistic manner, it is believed that the well-being and dignity of incarcerated women can be significantly enhanced, thereby contributing to the promotion of health equity within correctional facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".