Interest Holders-Driven Research Priorities in Sexual and Reproductive Health for Migrant and Refugee Adolescents and Young Adults in Australia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Background Despite sustained global commitment to sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), adolescents and young adults from migrant and refugee backgrounds continue to face disproportionate barriers to accessing appropriate services. In Australia’s multicultural landscape, systemic issues such as cultural stigma, limited sexual health literacy, and inadequate culturally responsive services exacerbate these disparities, highlighting the need for an interest-holder-centred and evidence-informed approach to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research prioritisation. Methods This study employed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology to collaboratively identify and prioritise key research uncertainties in SRH for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults in Australia. Guided by a multidisciplinary steering committee, the process encompassed five structured stages: partnership formation, literature-based identification of uncertainties, interest holders’ consultation and refinement, an interim prioritisation survey, and a final consensus workshop. A rapid literature review generated 83 research questions across five domains and twelve thematic areas, which were assessed via two rounds of structured online surveys. Participants included youth interest holders (adolescents and young adults aged 18–24 from migrant and refugee backgrounds), alongside diverse professional interest holders from healthcare, academic, governmental, and community sectors. Results A total of 92 participants (31 youth and 61 professionals) completed the initial survey, generating 83 research uncertainties that were refined into 18 indicative questions across five SRH domains. Among youth interest-holders, 74.2% identified as female and 25.8% as male. Professional interest-holders were more gender-diverse, with 49.2% female, 32.8% male, 8.2% transgender, and 9.8% preferring not to disclose. Youth participants predominantly identified psychosocial, community-based, and education-related concerns, while professionals drawn from academic/research (37.7%), health industry organizations (13.1%), healthcare services (44.3%), and NGOs emphasised system-level barriers and challenges in service access. Using median scores, eight questions emerged as shared high priorities across both groups. In the final consensus phase, 11 questions were identified as top priorities, with three receiving high-priority ratings from both youth and professionals. Key areas included male SRH, psychosocial contributors to gender-based violence, culturally tailored education, and community-based maternal health support. Notably, youth participants consistently rated more items as high priority than professionals, reflecting divergent perspectives shaped by lived experience. These results provide an empirically grounded, interest holders-informed SRH research agenda for migrant and refugee youth in Australia. Conclusion This interest-holders driven priority setting initiative highlights the pressing need for tailored SRH research responsive to the lived experiences of adolescent and young adults of migrant and refugee background in Australia. The identified priorities serve as a foundation for future evidence-based interventions and policy development to advance health equity and service inclusivity.
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 | 0,168 | 0,123 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,028 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| 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 ».