Cocreating First Steps, a Toolkit to Improve Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: Qualitative Human-Centered Design Study With Hispanic and Black Adolescent Mothers in New York City
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adolescent voices are frequently excluded from sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research. Despite progressive policies and access to SRH care, adolescents in New York City who live in neighborhoods with high poverty and those who identify as Black or Hispanic experience poor SRH outcomes, including high rates of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aims to guide Black and Hispanic adolescent mothers in identifying problem areas in SRH care and cocreate health service recommendations with input from health care stakeholders to address those problems and improve SRH experiences. METHODS: Through ethnographic interview methods, adolescent mothers in New York City shared their experiences from before pregnancy through parenting and identified problem areas in adolescent SRH services and education. Data were analyzed inductively and using situational analysis. Adolescent participants attended 2 cocreation workshops. In the first workshop, they confirmed interview findings, set priorities, and created rough prototypes. Following the first workshop, health care providers were interviewed to inform refinement of the rough prototypes. Adolescents further developed prototypes in the second cocreation workshop and named the resulting toolkit. RESULTS: A total of 16 adolescent mothers participated in 47 interviews, and 10 (63%) participants attended at least 1 cocreation workshop. They highlighted deficiencies in sexual health education and emphasized the roles of health care providers and parents, rather than schools, in improving it. Adolescent participants designed recommendations for adolescents and health care providers to support quality conversations between adolescents, parents, and health care providers and created a preappointment checklist to help young patients initiate conversations with health care providers. Young participants stressed that sex education should address topics beyond sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy, such as emotional health and relationships. They created guidelines for health care providers outlining communication strategies to provide respectful, unbiased care and contraceptive counseling that encourages adolescent autonomy. Participants shared specific suggestions for how to support young parents respectfully. Health care stakeholders recommended adding information on confidential care; supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth; and focusing on improving communication between health care providers and patients rather than creating educational materials. In the second workshop, adolescent participants revised the prototypes based on feedback from health care stakeholders and named the toolkit of recommendations First Steps. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the important roles that parents and health care workers play in adolescent sexual health education. Cocreated toolkits offer a practical approach for health care providers to engage adolescents and their parents in meaningful, adolescent-centered conversations that can promote health, safety, and well-being.
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 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 | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».