MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2408810327 · doi:10.22605/rrh3664

Heterosexual female adolescents' decision-making about sexual intercourse and pregnancy in rural Ontario, Canada

2016· article· en· W2408810327 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Paulina Ezer, Beverly Leipert, Marilyn Evans, Sandra Regan

Notice bibliographique

RevueRural and Remote Health · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRural areaSexual intercoursePregnancyReproductive healthPsychologyGrounded theoryDemographyMedicinePopulationQualitative researchEnvironmental healthSociologySocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rural female adolescents experience unique circumstances to sexual health care and information as compared to urban adolescents. These circumstances are largely due to their more isolated geographical location and rural sociocultural factors. These circumstances may be contributing factors to an incidence of adolescent pregnancy that is higher in rural areas than in urban cities. Thus, this higher incidence of pregnancy may be due to the ways in which rural adolescents make decisions regarding engagement in sexual intercourse. However, the rural female adolescent sexual decision-making process has rarely, if ever, been studied, and further investigation of this process is necessary. Focusing on rural female adolescents aged 16-19 years is especially significant as this age range is used for reporting most pregnancy and birth statistics in Ontario. METHODS: Charmaz's guidelines for a constructivist grounded theory methodology were used to gain an in-depth understanding of eight Ontario rural female adolescents' decision-making process regarding sexual intercourse and pregnancy, and how they viewed rural factors and circumstances influencing this process. Research participants were obtained through initial sampling (from criteria developed prior to the study) and theoretical sampling (by collecting data that better inform the categories emerging from the data). Eight participants, aged 16-19 years, were invited to each take part in 1-2-hour individual interviews, and four of these participants were interviewed a second time to verify and elaborate on emerging constructed concepts, conceptual relationships, and the developing process. Data collection and analysis included both field notes and individual interviews in person and over the telephone. Data were analyzed for emerging themes to construct a theory to understand the participants' experiences making sexual decisions in a rural environment. RESULTS: The adolescent sexual decision-making process, Prioritizing Influences, that emerged from the analysis was a complex and non-linear process that involved prioritizing four influences within the rural context. The influences that participants of this study described as being part of their sexual decision-making process were personal values and circumstances, family values and expectations, friends' influences, and community influences. When influences coincided, they strengthened participants' sexual decisions, whereas when influences opposed each other, participants felt conflicted and prioritized the influence that had the most effect on their personal lives and future goals. Although these influences may be common to all adolescents, they impact the rural female adolescent sexual decision-making process by influencing and being influenced by geographical and sociocultural factors that make up the rural context. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals important new and preliminary information about rural female adolescents' sexual decision-making process and factors that affect it. Findings improve understanding of how rural female adolescents make choices regarding sexual intercourse and pregnancy and can be used to guide future research projects that could facilitate effective development of sexual health promotion initiatives, inform rural health policy and practices, and enhance existing sexual education programs in rural communities.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,585
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,878

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
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 Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,372
Écart entre enseignants0,337 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations7
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRural and Remote HealthMême sujetAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthTravaux en français237 207