What do we know about sexual and reproductive health of adolescents in Europe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acceptance of sexual and reproductive health as fundamental to the sustainable development of societies has allowed for creation of new reproductive health programmes and policies. WHO sexual and reproductive health (SRH) strategies were developed in the WHO Regional Office for Europe (2001), as well as globally (2004). Adolescent SRH is important in both strategies. Despite these commitments, adolescents remain vulnerable to poor reproductive health. The goal of this paper is to analyse the current status of SRH of adolescents in Europe. METHODS: Key reproductive health indicators were chosen. Information was obtained from published studies, databases and questionnaires sent to WHO reproductive health counterparts within the health ministries in the Member States of the WHO European Region. RESULTS: Pregnancy rate, age at first sexual intercourse, contraceptive use at first and last intercourse, contraceptive prevalence, HIV knowledge, and STI rates vary widely according to the population considered. Gender difference and lack of information pertaining to SRH of all adolescent populations are other key findings. CONCLUSIONS: While the SRH of most European adolescents is good, they remain a vulnerable population. Lack of standardized reproductive indicators and age specific aggregate data make it difficult to accurately assess the situation in individual countries or perform cross country comparison.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".