MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2016456930 · doi:10.1136/sextrans-2011-050108.271

P1-S6.47 Description and evaluation of a regional condom access program for community organizations

2011· article· en· W2016456930 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Geneviève Petit, Annick Bigras, Catherine Dubé, François-Charles Malo, M C Surprenant, M Salvail, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon

Notice bibliographique

RevueSexually Transmitted Infections · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Sherbrooke
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCondomProgram evaluationFamily medicineGynecologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Statistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background As observed in the rest of Quebec province, the number of STD declared to public health authorities in Estrie have been increasing in the last years. It has also been evaluated that condom use in this region is not as high as expected, particularly by young people. The Estrie region began a program in 2008 to favour free access to condoms for community organizations in contact with groups known as vulnerable to STDs. Purpose Describe and evaluate the implementation of the program after a period of 3 years. The regional program aim is to provide free condoms to vulnerable groups through distribution by community organizations in contact with these groups. This program is conducted among others to increase use of condoms and reduce STDs in Estrie. Recommendations resulting from evaluation will be use to improve the program. Methods The process evaluation was conducted in two parts: 1. First part was conducted by analysing all relevant documents available at the public health department in charge. 2. Second part was conducted by interviewing all community organizations which participated in the program. Information was collected orally by two interviewers, using a standardised questionnaire. Results The regional program is based on five components: 1) Annual launch (November) with a letter sent to all community organizations known to work with vulnerable groups. 2) Project submission by community organizations using a standardised form. 3) Distribution of condoms to community organizations. 4) Distribution of condoms to vulnerable groups by community organizations. 5) Annual report of activity by participating community organizations. Eleven community organizations had received condoms within the three years of the program. More than 100 000 condoms have been distributed in various projects. The regional budget allowed to the program has been able to covert the cost of all requested condoms, except for 1 year, where all projects were accepted, but with a somewhat reduced number of condoms per project. Participants were generally satisfied with the program. They confirmed its usefulness but proposed some modifications to it. Thirteen recommendations were made following evaluation. Some of them were about: 1) Favoured methods to approach community organizations. 2) Use more marketing so that more organizations know about the program. 3) Use of reminder for project submission and annual activity report. 3) Offering more kinds of condoms (especially large and without latex). 5) Offer education material to use in organizations along with condoms. Conclusion Overall, the regional condom access program is considered useful and satisfying by the participating organizations. The recommendations resulting from evaluation will be useful to optimise the implementation of program in the future, adapt it to the needs and therefore increase its efficacy to reach its STDs reduction goals.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,252
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,284
Tête enseignante GPT0,472
Écart entre enseignants0,188 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSexually Transmitted InfectionsMême sujetAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthTravaux en français237 207