MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2805670480 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15319

The problem of social desirability bias when measuring desire for adolescent pregnancy

2018· letter· en· W2805670480 sur OpenAlexaff
B. Payne

Notice bibliographique

RevueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Établissements canadiensBC Children's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPregnancySocial desirability biasRecall biasPopulationReporting biasPsychologyDemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial psychologySocial desirabilityMEDLINEEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Accurate reporting of pregnancy desire is instrumental to develop programmes that meet the needs of adolescents and can ensure their right to safety and support during their development into adulthood. In the paper by Estrada et al. (BJOG 2018;125:1330–6), the authors present more needed data on pregnancy desire in Latin America through secondary analysis of the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (https://mics.unicef.org/surveys). In this study, the authors found that pregnancy desire varied significantly by region, ranging from 38% in Panama to 79% in Cuba. The authors use robust methodology to account for between-country differences and identified that older adolescents with lower levels of education and lower parity and who were already married or cohabiting were more likely to desire their pregnancy. These findings have significant implications for effective programme design to reduce the adolescent pregnancy rate. In this analysis, the authors rightly state a limitation of their data as ‘a proportion of the population was retrospectively reporting pregnancy desire and would be subject to recall bias while others were currently pregnant and biased by social desirability’. The issue of social desirability bias is one that probably affects the entire population included in this study. It may have led to inflated estimates of pregnancy desire in some respondents, particularly those who are older and cohabiting, and reduced reporting in those who are younger or more educated, as is represented in the findings of this study. Social desirability bias is an issue that could and should be addressed in future research on pregnancy desire in adolescents. It is motivated by psychosocial determinants, such as the need for social approval and avoidance of embarrassment, and can also be determined by survey type, location and time (Krumpal Qual Quant 2013;47:2025–47). Methods to address social desirability bias in sexual health surveys have been presented, including indirect questioning and informal confidential voting interviews (Gregson et al. Sexually Transm Dis 2002;29:568–75). Reducing adolescent pregnancy is a health and human rights issue that requires urgent attention if we are to meet our global targets for health and prosperity set out in the Sustainable Development Goals. Specifically, programmes are needed that support the reduction of adolescent pregnancy in a respectful and inclusive manner, and that promote responsible and healthy reproductive and sexual behaviours, to ensure that girls meet their full potential. Effective programme design requires understanding the needs of adolescent girls, including the factors motivating their desire to become pregnant at such a young age. Estrada et al. begin to fill the gap in knowledge regarding pregnancy desire in Latin American adolescents, but further work is required that takes into account the social structure, societal norms, and individual and collective values surrounding girls during their adolescent years. The author would like to acknowledge thanks to Sumedha Sharma and Marianne Vidler for their editorial assistance. None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,413
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,648
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,587
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,724

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,4130,648
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,004
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,008
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0040,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,110
Tête enseignante GPT0,330
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · 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; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
DomaineMéthodes
GenreCommentaire

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologyMême sujetGlobal Maternal and Child HealthTravaux en français237 207