Stakeholders’ perceptions of adolescents’ sexual and reproductive health needs in Southeast Nigeria: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the perceptions of adult stakeholders on adolescents sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs, variations of perceived needs by different social stratifiers and adolescent's perceived interventions to address these needs. This will provide evidence that could be useful for policy and programme reviews for improving access and use of services in to meet the SRH needs of adolescents. DESIGN: A qualitative cross-sectional study was conducted in Ebonyi state, Southeast, Nigeria. Data were analysed using thematic framework and content analysis approaches. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study was conducted in six selected local government areas in Ebonyi state, Nigeria. The study participants comprised of adult stakeholders including community leaders, adolescent boys and girls aged 13-18 years. Adolescents were purposively selected from schools, skill acquisition centres and workplaces. A total of 77 in-depth interviews, 6 (with community leaders) and 12 (with adolescents) focus group discussions were conducted using pretested question guides. RESULTS: Adolescent SRH needs were perceived to be unique and special due to their vulnerability, fragility and predisposition to explore new experiences. Recurring adolescent SRH needs were: SRH education and counselling; access to contraceptive services and information. These needs were perceived to vary based on sex, schooling and marital status. Adolescent girls were perceived to have more psychological needs, and more prone to negative health outcomes. Out-of-school adolescents were described as more vulnerable, less controlled, less supervised and more prone to sexual abuse. Unmarried adolescents were perceived more vulnerable to sexual exploitation and risks, while married were perceived to have more maternal health service needs. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of adolescents' SRH needs converge among stakeholders (including adolescents) and are thought to vary by gender, schooling and marital status. This calls for well-designed gender-responsive interventions that also take into consideration other social stratifiers and adolescent's perceived SRH intervention strategies.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».