A systematic review and meta‐ethnography of the qualitative literature: experiences of the menarche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article is a report of a systematic review and meta-ethnography of women's experience of menarche. BACKGROUND: Adolescents may experience menarche at different ages, but menarche remains an important milestone in the female maturation process, representing the transition from childhood to womanhood. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-ethnography. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched and supplemented with reference lists searching. Qualitative studies of women's experience of menarche were purposely selected and questions proposed by the critical appraisal skills programme was adapted and used to assess papers prior to synthesis. Key themes and concepts were extracted and synthesised using meta-ethnography. RESULTS: Fourteen studies on menarche experience were identified. The majority of studies were descriptive. Five key concepts were identified from all 14 papers as being descriptive of women's experience of menarche. These included: menarche preparation, significant others' response to menarche, physical experience of menarche, psychological experience of menarche and social-cultural perspective of menarche. CONCLUSIONS: Menarche experience had a major impact on women. Women went through physical, psychological and social-culture changes when their first menstrual flow came. Menarche preparation has been shown to have a beneficial impact on the menarcheal woman. School nurses have accurate knowledge about sexual health; they can and should provide appropriate menstrual education. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings can be used by school nurses working with adolescents as the basis for a framework of intervention strategies directed towards helping adolescents to better accept their menarche and transition into womanhood.
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 | 0.093 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".