Prevalence and Trends of Sexual Behaviors Among Young Adolescents Aged 12 Years to 15 Years in Low and Middle-Income Countries: Population-Based Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Risky sexual behaviors remain significant public health challenges among adolescents. Nearly 90% of adolescents live in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), but few studies have used standardized methodology to monitor the prevalence and trends of sexual behaviors among adolescents in LMICs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of sexual behaviors (ever had sexual intercourse, multiple sexual partners, and condom use) among adolescents aged 12 years to 15 years as well as the trends in prevalence between 2003 and 2017. METHODS: For this population-based study, we used recent data from the Global School-based Student Health Survey conducted in 69 LMICs from 2003 to 2017 to assess the recent prevalence of sexual behaviors by using complex analysis and a random effects meta-analyses method. Using the chi-square trend test, we also assessed the trends in the prevalence of sexual behaviors in 17 countries that had conducted ≥1 round of surveys from 2003 to 2017. RESULTS: We included 145,277 adolescents aged 12 years to 15 years (64,719/145,277, 44.5% boys) from the 69 LMICs that had conducted ≥1 survey and 80,646 adolescents aged 12 years to 15 years (34,725/80,646, 43.1% boys) from the 17 LMICs that had conducted ≥1 round of surveys. The recent global prevalence of ever had sexual intercourse was 6.9% (95% CI 6.2%-7.6%) and was higher among boys (10.0%, 95% CI 9.1%-11.1%) than girls (4.2%, 95% CI 3.7%-4.7%) and among those aged 14 years to 15 years (8.5%, 95% CI 7.7%-9.3%) than those aged 12 years to 13 years (4%, 95% CI 3.4%-4.7%). Among adolescents who had ever had sex, the recent global prevalence of having multiple sexual partners was 52% (95% CI 50.4%-53.6%) and was higher among boys (58%, 95% CI 56.1%-59.9%) than girls (41.4%, 95% CI 38.9%-43.9%) and among those aged 14 years to 15 years (53.5%, 95% CI 51.6%-55.4%) than those aged 12 years to 13 years (49.7%, 95% CI 45.9%-53.5%). Among adolescents who had ever had sex, the recent global prevalence of condom use was 58.1% (95% CI 56.2%-59.9%) and was higher among girls (59.2%, 95% CI 56.4%-61.9%) than boys (57.7%, 95% CI 55.7%-59.7%) and among those aged 14 years to 15 years (59.9%, 95% CI 58.0%-61.8%) than those aged 12 years to 13 years (51.6%, 95% CI 47.5%-55.7%). Between the earliest and latest surveys, the overall prevalence of ever had sexual intercourse (3.1% decrease) and condom use (2.0% decrease) showed downward trends. The overall prevalence of having multiple sexual partners increased by 2.6%. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence and important implication for policymakers to develop targeted policy support systems to prevent and reduce risky sexual behaviors among young adolescents in LMICs with a high prevalence of risky sexual behaviors.
Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Le tri à trois modèles
les 5 600 travaux triés →Les trois modèles l'ont jugé hors champ.
Population-based study of adolescent sexual behaviour prevalence and trends in low- and middle-income countries; an epidemiological question.
The meta-analysis uses a synthesis method to study adolescent sexual behaviors rather than synthesis methodology.
Public-health epidemiology of adolescent sexual behaviours in LMICs; uses surveys, does not study methods.
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».